• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
The Jeb! and Walker campaigns show that a fuckton of rich people supporting you can get you really far in this world, but rich donors can't make a dumb motherfucker with no personality into a real presidential candidate.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I have donated to two campaigns: Obama and Hillary. I donated to Obama after Palin's disgraceful and disgusting speech. And I donated to Hillary after the Republicans disgusting and disgraceful Benghazi hearing sham. I am 1/1 so far! wooot let's go
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Y2Kev said:
I have donated to two campaigns: Obama and Hillary. I donated to Obama after Palin's disgraceful and disgusting speech. And I donated to Hillary after the Republicans disgusting and disgraceful Benghazi hearing sham. I am 1/1 so far! wooot let's go
Click to expand...

Which disgraceful Palin speech? There are too many.
 
U

User1608

Banned
Big Green Anus said:
I hope she stopped accepting this for personal reasons and not political reasons :(
Click to expand...
Eh, it doesn't bother me too much; The most important thing for me is that she isn't taking their contributions and that's enough for me regardless of her reasons.

Also, yup, Jeb! is going to be done soon.
 
K

Konka

Banned
FloydtheFathead said:
No time to Diablos.. We are riding the classiest ride to the White House.
Click to expand...

donald-trump-white-house-white-house-correspondents-dinner-obama-speech-jokes-tacky-casino-stupid-hair-celebrity-apprentice.jpg
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
It's crazy how we can witness Trump helped destroy the campaigns of Walker and Bush yet Trump himself will not win a single primary state in the end.

Even though Trump has virtually no chance being the nominee his impact on the race will have been extremely significant.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Cheebo said:
It's crazy how we can witness Trump helped destroy the campaigns of Walker and Bush yet Trump himself will not win a single primary state in the end.

Even though Trump has virtually no chance being the nominee his impact on the race will have been extremely significant.
Click to expand...

If Trump destroys Rubio though, who will win the nomination?

(Trump ended Rand and Christie too)
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Hmm, I think Mitch McConnell will be starting DidTedCruzRapeandMurderaGirlin1999.com soon and will be planting evidence that Ted Cruz committed major crimes.

I think the Establishment would rather have Trump or Carson to be honest.

Betting markets are finally realizing that Jeb is done, new standings:

Rubio: 33%
Jeb: 19%
Trump: 18%
Carson: 10%
Cruz: 6%
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Cruz is harder for the party to discredit and cast aside because he's a U.S. senator.

Trump is much easier to paint as a shadowy interloper.

So if someone like Trump wins the nomination and causes 2016 to be a complete disaster, I think it would be easier for the party as a whole to come to terms with it. They can, in their minds, cut out the cancer much more easily than if it's Cruz.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Cheebo said:
It's crazy how we can witness Trump helped destroy the campaigns of Walker and Bush yet Trump himself will not win a single primary state in the end.

Even though Trump has virtually no chance being the nominee his impact on the race will have been extremely significant.
Click to expand...

Citation needed. Even santorum and Gingrich won primary states.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Manmademan said:
Citation needed. Even santorum and Gingrich won primary states.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think he will get a single state. I think Jeb drops out before Iowa and Rubio consolidates support of the establishment wing. I saw Chris Cillizza of the Wash Post making the same prediction Friday, that Trump will not win a single state.

My predictions for the first 4 states:
Iowa: Carson
New Hampshire: Rubio
South Carolina: Rubio or Carson
Nevada: Rubio

Trump drops out before Super Tuesday. Rubio steamrolls through the rest of the primary. Carson and Cruz win a handful here and there.

Jeb won't make it to Iowa. Rubio will pick up all his support and backers. If Jeb drops out before Iowa the primary is done and over, Rubio has it in the bag at that point.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
If Rubio makes a "gaffe" like, "I believe amnesty is a good thing and undocumented immigrants are people" he'll be done, betting 100% on Rubio when he's at 8% and has shit infrastructure and the "skeleton" of caring about undocumented immigrants is not a wise move I believe.
 
G

gaugebozo

Member
NeoXChaos said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bush-campaign-downsizes-in-the-face-of-trump-strength/2015/10/23/4908181e-79a9-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html
Click to expand...
From the NY Times version:
http://nytimes.com/2015/10/24/us/po....nav=top-news&referer=http://www.nytimes.com/

NY Times said:
In New Hampshire, meanwhile, Mr. Bush is drawing inspiration from another candidate who also struggled with money troubles — Senator John McCain of Arizona. Several times in recent weeks, Mr. Bush has recalled an encounter with Mr. McCain at the Atlanta airport during the 2008 presidential primary campaign
...

But Mr. McCain persisted, Mr. Bush said, implicitly making an analogy-cum-prediction for his own predicament.

“He won New Hampshire, he won Florida, he won the nomination, and he should have been president,” Mr. Bush said.
Click to expand...
"Guys, it's OK, I'm just like John McCain!"
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Cheebo said:
I honestly don't think he will get a single state. I think Jeb drops out before Iowa and Rubio consolidates support of the establishment wing. I saw Chris Cillizza of the Wash Post making the same prediction Friday, that Trump will not win a single state.

My predictions for the first 4 states:
Iowa: Carson
New Hampshire: Rubio
South Carolina: Rubio or Carson
Nevada: Rubio

Trump drops out before Super Tuesday. Rubio steamrolls through the rest of the primary. Carson and Cruz win a handful here and there.

Jeb won't make it to Iowa. Rubio will pick up all his support and backers.
Click to expand...

Either you're still drunk from last night, or not paying attention to polls.

Carson does extremely poorly in states with low percentage of evangelicals. Trump steamrolls him in these places. New Hampshire and South Carolina Trump is so far ahead even combining the bush/rubio vote makes no difference.

New Hampshire:
Trump 26.7%
Carson 14.7
Bush 9.3
Rubio 8.7

South Carolina:
Trump 33.7
Carson 18.3
Fiorina: 7.0
Rubio: 6.7

Florida:
Trump: 24.7
Carson 16.7
Rubio 14.7
Bush: 12.7

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/early_primary_state_polls.html

The longer Bush stays in the race the better it is for Trump. dropping out early and consolidating the establishment vote is the only way he slows down- and that's assuming that ALL of Bush's votes go to rubio, which isn't likely at all. Those votes will be spread evenly among "second choice" candidates Cruz, Fiorina, Paul, Huckabee, etc.

Keep in mind as well that Rubio's grassroots fundraising (that is, his support from non large dollar donors) is VERY poor- not quite as bad as Jeb! but weak enough to indicate his support isn't very robust at all among the rank and file.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Manmademan said:
Either you're still drunk from last night, or not paying attention to polls.

Carson does extremely poorly in states with low percentage of evangelicals. Trump steamrolls him everywhere else. New Hampshire and South Carolina Trump is so far ahead even combining the bush/rubio vote makes no difference.

New Hampshire:
Trump 26.7%
Carson 14.7
Bush 9.3
Rubio 8.7

South Carolina:
Trump 33.7
Carson 18.3
Fiorina: 7.0
Rubio: 6.7

Florida:
Trump: 24.7
Carson 16.7
Rubio 14.7
Bush: 12.7

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/early_primary_state_polls.html

The longer Bush stays in the race the better it is for Trump. dropping out early and consolidating the establishment vote is the only way he slows down- and that's assuming that ALL of Bush's votes go to rubio, which isn't likely at all. Those votes will be spread evenly among "second choice" candidates Cruz, Fiorina, Paul, Huckabee, etc.

Keep in mind as well that Rubio's grassroots fundraising (that is, his support from non large dollar donors) is VERY poor- not quite as bad as Jeb! but weak enough to indicate his support isn't very robust at all among the rank and file.
Click to expand...
My prediction is predicated on the belief Jeb will drop out well before Iowa. If he stays in and fights for his life through or until Super Tuesday I can see Trump winning a few states including New Hampshire.

But I am very very much on the side of Jeb dropping out. And soon.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Cheebo said:
My prediction is predicated on the belief Jeb will drop out well before Iowa. If he stays in and fights for his life through or until Super Tuesday I can see Trump winning a few states including New Hampshire.

But I am very very much on the side of Jeb dropping out. And soon.
Click to expand...

I think he's out after the third debate, really- though with really smart use of his money he could stay in until iowa.

but the point of those numbers is that it doesn't matter. Even if rubio takes ALL of bush's support with none of it going to anyone else (which again, isn't happening- Rubio's "second choice" numbers aren't that high- edit: See below)

trump%20second_zpsrkhkuz65.png



, it isn't enough to pass trump in the early primary states. It's barely enough to tie him in Florida, where Rubio and Bush are FROM.

Implying Trump won't take any primary states is lunacy. Picking up at least one of these is inevitable, unless you're counting on him getting bored and walking away before new hampshire.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Only way the establishment would back Cruz instead of anyone else is if McConnel decides to go full scorched earth on the fucker and puts him up there so he can get destroyed nationally.

I don't consider most of the republicans 11th dimension chess players, so i doubt it'll happen.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Coriolanus said:
Only way the establishment would back Cruz instead of anyone else is if McConnel decides to go full scorched earth on the fucker and puts him up there so he can get destroyed nationally.

I don't consider most of the republicans 11th dimension chess players, so i doubt it'll happen.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Rubio is a good enough politician to make a decent shot at being the frontrunner. his infrastructure problems are well publicized, but we've yet to see him weather any serious attacks in media or in the debates. There's going to be a lot of people gunning for him in the third debate- I wouldn't be surprised to see his numbers go down.

I'm also expecting Fiorina to have another breakout debate and deflate his support no matter what he does. She's the best debater in the republican field by FAR- no one else is anywhere close.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Chichikov said:
The fact that I believe that a situation where you had a female president is better than one where you only had men does not mean that I think that every woman candidate is the right choice for the office.
But if you like me prefer to live in a country where you had presidents of all genders, you need to ask yourself what are you willing to do to make it happen.

Because we know, doing nothing (which is exactly what the people who push the "reverse racism" as an attack on policies like affirmative action want us to do) usually means no change.
Click to expand...
Having female presidents isn't inherently better if the candidates or presidents aren't good.

The first vote I ever cast was for a female governor, Jennifer Granholm. I voted for her because she was the best candidate. In reality she was a terrible governor. I'm not going to hold that against future female candidates obviously because that would be ridiculous...but I'm not going to blindly vote for a female candidate just because she's female either. This isn't diversity, it's identity politic nonsense.

If we were talking about school boards or similar collaborative processes where you have multiple candidates/positions, many of whom share the same views, sure. I vote for Green Party, independents, and democrats in cases like that depending on the views - and I often vote for women and minorities. But we don't pick our presidents or governors like that, or at least shouldn't. Hillary is the best candidate running for president. It does more disservice to her gender to judge her solely on her gender than her merits as a candidate.

Again this strikes me as liberal guilt more than logic. I won't rustle anyone again with "white liberal guilt" accusation but yeah...
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Manmademan said:
I'm not sure Rubio is a good enough politician to make a decent shot at being the frontrunner. his infrastructure problems are well publicized, but we've yet to see him weather any serious attacks in media or in the debates. There's going to be a lot of people gunning for him in the third debate- I wouldn't be surprised to see his numbers go down.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda thinking that they'd try that brokered convention some peeps explained a coupla months back in order to brute force someone that the establishment doesn't hate.

That'd almost certainly make The Don run as an independent tho, so i'm sure that they'd consider that for quite a long while.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Coriolanus said:
I'm kinda thinking that they'd try that brokered convention some peeps explained a coupla months back in order to brute force someone that the establishment doesn't hate.

That'd almost certainly make The Don run as an independent tho, so i'm sure that they'd consider that for quite a long while.
Click to expand...

They won't do that, because that's the quickest way possible to permanently split the party. It's dangerously close to that point already.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
Citation needed for the bolded, and to a greater extent, definition dispute.

Democracy is not about voters being informed or having the results match our expectations of what the "interests of the people" really is. Perhaps the interests of the people is in having a democratic system that allows them to be as ignorant or informed as they want. How would we even determine what people's interest should be or whether they're conforming to those interests by their votes? What distinguishes the vote of an ignorant person from an informed person if they vote for the same thing, intent/motivation are not and should not be preconditions to voting.

The whole point of democracy is about everyone being able to vote and participate in governance without restrictions. It's the prerogative of the masses to vote however they want, misinformed or otherwise. I would be equally supportive of people who choose their votes randomly or always fill out 'none' or 'other'. That's the beauty of democracy, warts and all. It's not about getting the right or wrong answer, it's about giving people the self-determination to make the decision regardless of the outcome.

I mean, who would even get to decide what 'information' is mandatory for people to be exposed to in these classes before they're allowed to vote? Should such a program be itself put to a vote or are the masses too ignorant to be allowed to vote on it before undergoing the very training they're voting on? Any program of this nature implicitly draws a line between people who deserve a vote and people who don't. That is inherently anti-democratic in of itself.
Click to expand...

pigeon said:
Definitionally, a real democracy is one in which as many people exercise the democratic franchise as possible, and as few people as possible are restricted from it. That's what democracy means!

There is no safety valve in democracy for ensuring that people are really voting for their own interests. It's the job of politicians to communicate, as effectively as possible, the consequences of voting for them or of voting for someone else, and let people rely on that information to make decisions. If politicians are failing at that, then they're failing at that, and the solution is to get better politicians. If some people just make bad decisions anyway, then they just make bad decisions anyway, but that's why we have like 300 million other people, to overrule those bad decisions.
Click to expand...

I'm going by this definition

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: A form of government where the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole nation. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 31.

I supposed you could argue that 'the best interest of the people' and the 'benefit of the whole nation' don't mean the same thing, but even if we went for the 'benefit of the whole nation' definition, my point is that I believe that voters should understand that their vote should serve as a means to achieve the goal of a representative democracy. Their vote may not do that if they don't know who the candidates are or what they stand for. If the voting system is structured in such a way that we can't have a true representative democracy, then I believe that measures should be taken to ensure that we can (as best as possible).

Coriolanus said:
All the concerns over "informed voters", whatever the fuck that may be, can be ameliorated by introducing that mythical Being A Functional Adult class in high school, which should also school teenagers into critical thinking methods. After that, que sera sera.
Click to expand...

I'd support this as well. The only difference is that it would take several decades before the general populace would be informed, as it doesn't account for any potential uninformed voters that are already out of high school. However, I wouldn't be opposed to our country having to wait that long before it could potentially have an effect on elections if that's what would eventually happen.

Cheebo said:
I think brain child's bizarre belief that people need to take 6 hours of classes to vote is out of some belief that a informed populace would have been more likely to vote for a candidate like Bernie. Regardless of the fact it would just result in a huge chunk of the Democratic Party staying home. Hell look at how bad democratic turn out is in off year elections and there are no classes required there. It's already too hard to vote for millions and millions of people as is.
Click to expand...

Not even close. You can keep pushing the crazy Bernie supporter narrative if you want, but know that it's completely based in the realm of fiction. I've already stated why I support an initiative that makes it mandatory for voters to be educated on what they're voting on, no need to indulge your fantasies here.

RustyNails said:
Have you ever stepped out of your comfy tower and been to...earth. First of all what you're proposing is utterly ludicrous. No one will show up to your test locations. We have only 60% of the citizenry participating in the elections in the first place. Throwing this dumb rule in there will make the voter turnout even worse. The less turnout is there, the better it is for Republican party. Fact. Secondly, people have lives. Even 1 hour out of a year seems inconsequential to you, but its important to them. If they would rather spend it with their family, their friends, school or work, it's very hard to sacrifice. Just as an example, me and my wife have been trying to figure out how to get our car tested for emissions. Easy enough right? It will hardly take more than 10 minutes at the facility. But we've been schedluing and rescheduling for weeks now. It's just that difficult, especially when there is a kid in the equation and you both are working parents.

This kind of nonsense will backfire tremendously and destroy our voter turnout. Seems very close to "education camps" in my opinion. There are better ways to achieve political literacy without having a top down approach.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with the tests. Understandable, and I've already made a concession for it.

It's amazing to me that my hypothetical scenario has garnered so much dissent. As long as we're speaking in hypotheticals, there's no reason to assume that voter turn-out would be poor, in the event that this system would be implemented.

I don't view the idea in and of itself as bad. Problematic in today's society? Sure. But it's not like I ever argued that the system should be introduced into the voting process without changing anything else about how our society works today. Though maybe I should have laid out a comprehensive and sweeping plan to address all of the many problems with our society and what conditions would need to be fulfilled before something like mandatory voting literacy could be a viable facet of our election process.

shinra-bansho said:
Well, it also seems to stem from some weird idea that there's some obligation in democratic system that a voter uses their vote in the "right" way for the "interests of the people", whatever that's supposed to mean. Maybe that's also just a verbose way of saying that people would feelthebern.

(It also only seems to apply to presidential elections, rather than any more local representative elections for some reason.)

As opposed to what pigeon and Brawno describe above i.e. generally accepted definitions of representative democracy as systems of governance that allow participation by individuals through election of whoever they deem best reflects their views, values, interests, and so forth, for whatever rationale they decide.


From a quick look, something like 80% of his donors actually can't reinvest even if they wanted to anyway. They're at max.
Click to expand...

More like, voters should vote for the purpose of supporting a representative democracy. I conceded the point of making it obligatory (so scratch the test), but I believe that the classes would push the voters in that direction.
 
K

Konka

Banned
brainchild said:
More like, voters should vote for the purpose of supporting a representative democracy. I conceded the point of making it obligatory (so scratch the test), but I believe that the classes would push the voters in that direction.
Click to expand...

People can already proactively educate themselves, I don't know why you think offering free classes would provide any incentive at all to vote. So in that reality the only purpose they serve is to block voting from people who don't take them. I can't believe this discussion is even happening.
 
K

KingK

Member
What the fuck at someone actually advocating literacy tests ITT. What. The. Fuck. I see others have already taken him to task for that so i won't bother piling on.

BertramCooper said:
I'm still fine with people for voting for Bernie in the primaries as a show of solidarity with him and his ideology, especially if Hillary really starts to pull away.

But I think one can still vote for him while recognizing that he won't (and shouldn't) win the nomination.
Click to expand...
Didn't realize i needed the consent of Clinton voters to vote for who i want, but thanks? I guess this type of condescending attitude is at least an improvement from accusing me of being an ignorant, diet racist, Ron Paul supporter who never votes and is going to ruin the election :p
 
M

Makai

Member
RustyNails said:
This kind of nonsense will backfire tremendously and destroy our voter turnout. Seems very close to "education camps" in my opinion. There are better ways to achieve political literacy without having a top down approach.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this isn't just a hypothetical policy. We know the effects it will have because tons of countries have experimented with their own flavors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchisement_after_the_Reconstruction_Era
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
KingK said:
What the fuck at someone actually advocating literacy tests ITT. What. The. Fuck. I see others have already taken him to task for that so i won't bother piling on.


Didn't realize i needed the consent of Clinton voters to vote for who i want, but thanks? I guess this type of condescending attitude is at least an improvement from accusing me of being an ignorant, diet racist, Ron Paul supporter who never votes and is going to ruin the election :p
Click to expand...
I'm voting for Bernie but with the acknowledgment that Hillary as the GE candidate would probably produce a stronger win in the electoral college as well as in downballot races. The main thing is that Sanders more closely aligns with my views (albeit not by much), I still think he could win and frankly if Clinton couldn't beat him in the primary that would demonstrate that she's not a very good candidate.

It's important that Sanders is running. But I also wish he was black, female, 20 years younger and running in 2024. Identity politics is a real thing and I think we need to wait until the current generation has aged up a bit before America as a whole could comfortably elect someone with his views.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
brainchild said:
Thinking about this a bit more, I wouldn't even be opposed to compromising by having mandatory classes that automatically certify you for voting upon completion without a test. The push for literacy is more important to me than how well they perform on the test. There is a high likelihood that most uninformed voters will have learned more than they would have without the classes, and that in and of itself is a significant improvement over what we have now.
Click to expand...

Please go look at the "literacy tests" the South used to disenfranchise black voters. It's impossible to answer them correctly because they are worded intentionally to allow the tester to disqualify the voter even if they supply a correct answer.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Konka said:
People can already proactively educate themselves, I don't know why you think offering free classes would provide any incentive at all to vote. So in that reality the only purpose they serve is to block voting from people who don't take them. I can't believe this discussion is even happening.
Click to expand...

Many people don't proactively educate themselves. In this case, if their ignorance can result in a misrepresentation of a representative democracy, then I believe informing them on what they're voting for should be mandatory. It doesn't guarantee a true representative democracy, but I think it would get us closer to having one.

Also, there are already qualification requirements that could potentially prevent citizens from voting: Needing to be 18 years of age, and needing to be a resident of your precinct at least 30 days before election day. Add 'sat in voting class for 4-6 hours' to the list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu 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