Support NeoGAF

[Coriolanus]

I spent like thirty minutes searching for the mgs5 gif where snake rubs the water on his face to post in reaction to this news, but because typing mgs5 snake wet face gif into bing yielded me nothing I wanted to see, just imagine it

Would be super fascinating if we got both corbyn and sanders. Unlikely though it may be.

Corbyn obv being far better positioned, since he has nearly 5 years to get the general public once again used to WELFARE CAPITALISM, HO!

 

[RastaMentality]

@Nate_Cohn: Biden really hurts Clinton in this YouGov/CBS SC survey by splitting the black vote. Clinton is 1st/2nd choice of 83% black vt, Sanders 13%

@Nate_Cohn: As it is, it’s Clinton 52, Biden 34, Sanders 4 among black voters.

I'm surprised it's not closer. Black people love Biden.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I assume YouGov is legit pollster since they're with CBS. Did these latest Bernie numbers in NH and IA been talked about? Cuz goddamn Bernie is crushing her in both states.

Edit-It appears they have not.

NH
Bernie 52%
Clinton 30%

Iowa
Bernie 43%
Clinton 33%

Hot diggity dog.

YouGov isn't very good from what I remember but that mostly has to do with them being an online pollster and the problems inherent with that. They're worth looking at.

There's definitely been some good polls for Bernie. I'm not entirely convinced yet. I also think if Biden jumped in he would steal a lot of his thunder.

 

[Diablos]

Dems are feeling the Bern while the US will feel the BURN when we have another 8 years of GOP leadership because enough Democrats are dumb enough to think this guy has a chance in the general election.

gg Dems, back to 2000-2004 levels of utter stupidity I see.

Really considering switching my party affiliation to Independent.

PLEASE RUN, JOE BIDEN

 

[Plinko]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-tax-proposals-tilt-rich-115915494.html

GOP candidates tax plans all overwhelmingly favor the rich.

I would have titled the article, "The Sky is Blue."

 

[Angry Fork]

Dems are feeling the Bern while the US will feel the BURN when we have another 8 years of GOP leadership because enough Democrats are dumb enough to think this guy has a chance in the general election.

gg Dems, back to 2000-2004 levels of utter stupidity I see.

Really considering switching my party affiliation to Independent.

PLEASE RUN, JOE BIDEN

The republican party is running on fascist policies and talking points. Only a minority of this country is fascistic, they don't have the numbers to elect a president. The combination of hispanics, blacks, liberal jews, non-racist white people etc. will elect a democrat as president regardless of who it is, as long as they have liberal social policies and at least moderately liberal economic ones.

This election is Hilary vs. Sanders, it's not possible for a GOP candidate to become president without them radically shifting away from their American taliban base. Only rand paul has tried to do this and it seems to have failed for him.

I'm still personally pessimistic about Bernie beating Hilary because people like you still hold the majority view in the dem party but we'll see what happens, still supporting him 100%. If he doesn't get nominated I'd rather just abstain than vote for Hilary.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

The republican party is running on fascist policies and talking points. Only a minority of this country is fascistic, they don't have the numbers to elect a president. The combination of hispanics, blacks, liberal jews, non-racist white people etc. will elect a democrat as president regardless of who it is, as long as they have liberal social policies and at least moderately liberal economic ones.

This election is Hilary vs. Sanders, it's not possible for a GOP candidate to become president without them radically shifting away from their American taliban base. Only rand paul has tried to do this and it seems to have failed for him.

I'm still personally pessimistic about Bernie beating Hilary because people like you still hold the majority view in the dem party but we'll see what happens, still supporting him 100%. If he doesn't get nominated I'd rather just abstain than vote for Hilary.

You're delusional if you think Republicans can't win. They had 60 million people vote for them in both 2008 and 2012. It would only take a shift of 3% in most states to hand them the win. Abstaining your vote is even more gross.

 

[RustyNails]

Bernie is not winning. Neither the nomination nor the general.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I don't think it's unreasonable to go on the assumption that it's going to be a close race this early on, since we have no idea what the economy, world events etc. will look like in October 2016 or even who the candidates will be. However I would still argue that the Democrats have a huge structural advantage while the GOP has done diddly squat to fix their demographics problem(s). Basically the GOP needs the Democrats to screw up big time and this small fry "Hillary used a private email server BENGHAZI!!1" stuff isn't going to cut it.

But I'm glad diablosing is in full swing.

 

[User1608]

Dems are feeling the Bern while the US will feel the BURN when we have another 8 years of GOP leadership because enough Democrats are dumb enough to think this guy has a chance in the general election.

gg Dems, back to 2000-2004 levels of utter stupidity I see.

Really considering switching my party affiliation to Independent.

PLEASE RUN, JOE BIDEN

So this is diablosing lmao. I understand your concerns, but I think we'll be fine in the end!

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

So this is diablosing lmao. I understand your concerns, but I think we'll be fine in the end!

Given that SC poll is still firmly in Clinton/Biden territory. I'd say the one thing we've been saying about Sanders' support is still true. He still can't break through that barrier.

 

[Angry Fork]

You're delusional if you think Republicans can't win. They had 60 million people vote for them in both 2008 and 2012. It would only take a shift of 3% in most states to hand them the win. Abstaining your vote is even more gross.

If Hilary is nominated you'll see all the liberals saying exactly what I've just said. She's a shoe-in because of demographics. This is the line being parroted over and over in the past 5 years about GOP's demographic problem, and I think it's correct, even more so now as the GOP has gone even further right.

The majority of this country is socially liberal, they will not elect a GOP president without that person moving very far away from the right (which will alienate the taliban base). Any democrat who's socially liberal will win. I care most about left wing economic policies and I believe Hilary is right-wing on these issues, only talking left to make the base think she'll do something, I'm sticking with the guy who's principled and honest.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

If Hilary is nominated you'll see all the liberals saying exactly what I've just said. She's a shoe-in because of demographics. This is the line being parroted over and over in the past 5 years about GOP's demographic problem, and I think it's correct, even more so now as the GOP has gone even further right.

The majority of this country is socially liberal, they will not elect a GOP president without that person moving very far away from the right (which will alienate the taliban base). Any democrat who's socially liberal will win. I care most about left wing economic policies and I believe Hilary is right-wing on these issues, only talking left to make the base think she'll do something, I'm sticking with the guy who's principled and honest.

That's all well and good. But to refrain from voting in the general if Clinton is the nominee is lame as hell.

 

[NeoXChaos]

If Hilary is nominated you'll see all the liberals saying exactly what I've just said. She's a shoe-in because of demographics. This is the line being parroted over and over in the past 5 years about GOP's demographic problem, and I think it's correct, even more so now as the GOP has gone even further right.

The majority of this country is socially liberal, they will not elect a GOP president without that person moving very far away from the right (which will alienate the taliban base). Any democrat who's socially liberal will win. I care most about left wing economic policies and I believe Hilary is right-wing on these issues, only talking left to make the base think she'll do something, I'm sticking with the guy who's principled and honest.

What is your opinion on Biden?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

What is your opinion on Biden?

I'm gonna guess not liberal enough.

 

[And_Gignac]

Interesting data from USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll:


Donald Trump would lose the state if he ran only agaisnt Carson.

However, Carson held an 11-point lead when matched against Trump in a one-on-one matchup — 43 percent of Republicans supported him for president while 32 percent backed Trump.

Sanders is making inroads in California too, "only" 16 points behind Clinton now:

When read a list of potential candidates, 42 percent of those voters support Clinton for president if the election were to be held now, followed by 26 percent who said they would back Bernie Sanders.

When Vice President Joe Biden was added to the list of potential candidates, Clinton and Sanders’ support dropped in equal measures among Democratic and Decline to State voters. Clinton and Sanders received support from 39 percent and 23 percent of those voters, respectively, with Biden backed by 11 percent of voters. Sixteen percent of the voters were undecided.

Also important, Clinton has a commanding lead with minorities, but not a crushing one like in SC:

Clinton drew support from minority voters by wide margins, including 56 percent of black voters, 54 percent of Latino voters and 41 percent of Asian voters. In comparison, Sanders received support from 20 percent of both black and Asian voters, and 17 percent of Latino voters. Sixteen percent of Democrats and Decline to State voters are undecided about a Democratic candidate.

I believe theres nothing alienating about Sanders when it comes to appealing to minority voters. Is just a matter of awareness and preference. I dont think Sanders will overcome Biden and Clinton minority leads, but he doesnt have to; Sanders only needs a sizeable representation of minority voters if he is able to capture the white vote. If he has good debate showings and wins NH and Iowa, I think he can remaing competitive past Super Tuesday.

 

[watershed]

Trump spoke again about his tax plan he will be releasing in a few weeks. He promised higher taxes for the wealthy and middle class tax cuts. How will his fellow republicans attack him for this?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I believe theres nothing alienating about Sanders when it comes to appealing to minority voters. Is just a matter of awareness and preference. I dont think Sanders will overcome Biden and Clinton minority leads, but he doesnt have to; Sanders only needs a sizeable representation of minority voters if he is able to capture the white vote. If he has good debate showings and wins NH and Iowa, I think he can remaing competitive past Super Tuesday.

Nothing is impossible. But would you say this is less or more likely to happen? I would say less.

Trump spoke again about his tax plan he will be releasing in a few weeks. He promised higher taxes for the wealthy and middle class tax cuts. How will his fellow republicans attack him for this?

While at the same time promising to cut corporate taxes by a lot to "bring jobs back" so it seems like he's all over the place.

 

[Gotchaye]

Trump spoke again about his tax plan he will be releasing in a few weeks. He promised higher taxes for the wealthy and middle class tax cuts. How will his fellow republicans attack him for this?

Ineffectively.

 

[Angry Fork]

What is your opinion on Biden?

I'd prefer him over Hilary just so the Clinton/Bush monarchy doesn't continue but I wouldn't vote for him. I just don't care about Biden at all and find him to be shady, in the sense that I could see him being cozy with white racists/christian types for votes.

 

[thepotatoman]

I'm gonna guess not liberal enough.

He is less liberal than Hillary on economic issues, so that'd make sense.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'd prefer him over Hilary just so the Clinton/Bush monarchy doesn't continue but I wouldn't vote for him. I just don't care about Biden at all and find him to be shady, in the sense that I could see him being cozy with white racists/christian types for votes.

There's so much here that's ridiculous. Blaming Hillary for marrying someone who became President like she should have just accepted her place and gone away after her husband accomplished his goals. The Bushes are a monarchy, the Clintons are two average people who worked to get where they are.

Then there's Biden cozying up with racists out of nowhere. I guess it makes total sense. I thought your primary concern was economic ideology. This is just gossip.

 

[And_Gignac]

Trump spoke again about his tax plan he will be releasing in a few weeks. He promised higher taxes for the wealthy and middle class tax cuts. How will his fellow republicans attack him for this?

He is all over the place lol. He is like Ann Coulter: a half-liberal at heart just making empty racists statements to pander the intelectually deficient extremely religious-racist voter.

Nothing is impossible. But would you say this is less or more likely to happen? I would say less.

Less likely I agree, but it would be a "possible" path for Sanders.

 

[BertramCooper]

I believe theres nothing alienating about Sanders when it comes to appealing to minority voters. Is just a matter of awareness and preference. I dont think Sanders will overcome Biden and Clinton minority leads, but he doesnt have to; Sanders only needs a sizeable representation of minority voters if he is able to capture the white vote. If he has good debate showings and wins NH and Iowa, I think he can remaing competitive past Super Tuesday.

Personally, I'd like the Democratic nominee to have minority support that's considerably larger than "sizable."

 

[Angry Fork]

There's so much here that's ridiculous. Blaming Hillary for marrying someone who became President like she should have just accepted her place and gone away after her husband accomplished his goals. The Bushes are a monarchy, the Clintons are two average people who worked to get where they are.

Then there's Biden cozying up with racists out of nowhere. I guess it makes total sense.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...integration-school-busing-120968#.VcDeXflVikp

And I don't see the Clinton's as average people. If someone becomes president nobody in their family should be allowed to also become president, fuck heir's and dynasty's.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

And I don't see the Clinton's as average people. If someone becomes president nobody in their family should be allowed to also become president, fuck heir's and dynasty's.

If this was Chelsea you'd actually have a point. Punishing the spouse is just idiotic.

Personally, I'd like the Democratic nominee to have minority support that's considerably larger than "sizable."

The bare minimum isn't enough for you?

 

[And_Gignac]

Personally, I'd like the Democratic nominee to have minority support that's considerably larger than "sizable."

That would be preferable.It is worth though pointing out how Sanders seems to have a weird voting alliance that is a mixture of the Obama and Clinton (2008) ones plus the fringe ex Ron Paulites, and how such strange alliance could, in a not so likely but possible scenario, give him a majority.

 

[NeoXChaos]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...integration-school-busing-120968#.VcDeXflVikp

And I don't see the Clinton's as average people. If someone becomes president nobody in their family should be allowed to also become president, fuck heir's and dynasty's.

Well that scratches FDR off the list for Teddy.

 

[metalslimer]

I still don't see how in the world you can call two people a dynasty

 

[Retromelon]

When you elevate a man and then his wife to the highest executive position in a country for potentially 12 to 16 years?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Predictwise still giving Biden a better or equal chance with Sanders.

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

 

[dramatis]

I still don't see how in the world you can call two people a dynasty

There was a two-ruler dynasty in China, specifically the very first one, the Qin Dynasty.

There was also a single-ruler dynasty in China, but that was a very special, very exceptional case. Amusingly, that dynasty was not one of inheritance, but also not one of conquest either.

 

[Angry Fork]

If this was Chelsea you'd actually have a point. Punishing the spouse is just idiotic.

Multi-millionaires/billionaires are rarely punished in this country. She won't turn to rust if she doesn't become president, she'll just go back to whatever hamptons bankers castle she chills at.

Well that scratches FDR off the list for Teddy.

Socialists, communists and the working class in general created the capacity for someone like FDR to exist, the same would've happened for anyone else who didn't have that name so I wouldn't be that beat up about it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

When you elevate a man and then his wife to the highest executive position in a country for potentially 12 to 16 years?

It's not as if we're talking about Laura Bush here. Hillary won two elections to the Senate, was a capable Secretary of State, and from all accounts, is a very intelligent person. If she had the same exact portfolio, but Bill Clinton had lost the '92 nomination to Mario Cuomo, would that be better?

I can at least understand the concept of scions, and generations controlling a country (even though I'd point out that two members of the same family is basically the reason for 99% of our welfare state before LBJ), but to basically tell a man or wife he can never lead the country because of who he or she married is kind of silly.

 

[eBay Huckster]

It's easy to make agreements that commit you to a thing that turns out to be impossible and still be at fault for failing to uphold your end of the agreement, right? I don't think this is a very satisfying response. Like, suppose I rent a car - I give a company some money and they give me a car, and I promise to return the car in reasonably good shape in a few days. I accidentally park it at a military bombing range. Now it's actually impossible for me to return the car - it got exploded - but that's on me. I don't get to say that obviously the agreement can't have been requiring me to return the car since it would be impossible for me to do so.

This impossibility defense works when whatever-it-is was known to be impossible at the time the agreement was made. An interpretation of Corker-Cardin as requiring Obama to leap a tall building in a single bound is going to be suspect even if it's not a crazy interpretation of the text in a vacuum. Obviously the point of it was not to lay out a process that would occur after Obama did a thing that at the time it was apparent he could never do. What Metaphoreus and others elsewhere seem to be arguing is that, even if it is now impossible for Obama to supply the IAEA deal to Congress, that still means Obama has failed to supply the whole deal to Congress, and if he didn't want to fail to supply the whole deal to Congress he should have made sure that the final deal struck with Iran was such that the whole deal could be supplied to Congress. It was because of particular choices people made, which the Obama administration influenced or could have influenced, that the final deal is such that this IAEA thing which can't be supplied to Congress is part of it.

I don't really know if this is a great argument (though it strikes me as a lot more plausible than the Obamacare one) and I don't really know if it actually makes a difference in terms of what happens now (Metaphoreus also seems unsure if this actually has policy implications), but that's the argument. Conservatives aren't saying that Obama signed something that anyone knew at the time was impossible or which was guaranteed to be impossible. They're saying that Obama screwed up and made it impossible (or at least very difficult and possibly a bad idea, since it's not literally impossible) for him to set this process in motion. So it avoids the weakness of the King argument that obviously nobody intended the law to have this consequence. Probably if you'd asked people who voted for the law beforehand whether they intended for the process to go ahead even if some of the US' commitments under the deal depended on Iran upholding this other deal which would be a secret from the US, many of them would have said no. So I tend to think that as far as being right on whether or not this process going forward is legally the right outcome what you've got to be arguing is that the IAEA thing isn't actually a "side deal" or whatever; the impossibility stuff doesn't cut it.

Fair points overall, all told, and after a bit of reflection I agree with what you think should be the argument in place of the impossibility stuff. I guess in the wake of King I'm just disinclined toward the line of debate that's causing the "impossibility" argument to get brought up to begin with.

(Though that leads me to my next question: how exactly do you argue that it isn't actually a "side deal", given that it's one of the triggers for ending sanctions?)

 

[B-Dubs]

Predictwise still giving Biden a better or equal chance with Sanders.

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

Well that's because Biden has a chance at grabbing the Obama coalition away from Hillary if he runs, Sanders has no shot at such a thing at the moment.

 

[Abinash117]

Interesting data from USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll:


Donald Trump would lose the state if he ran only agaisnt Carson.



Sanders is making inroads in California too, "only" 16 points behind Clinton now:



Also important, Clinton has a commanding lead with minorities, but not a crushing one like in SC:



I believe theres nothing alienating about Sanders when it comes to appealing to minority voters. Is just a matter of awareness and preference. I dont think Sanders will overcome Biden and Clinton minority leads, but he doesnt have to; Sanders only needs a sizeable representation of minority voters if he is able to capture the white vote. If he has good debate showings and wins NH and Iowa, I think he can remaing competitive past Super Tuesday.

I believe he has to if he is going to try when many primary states; he is mostly polling well with the younger crowd not older one which he needs to get many primary states.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Multi-millionaires/billionaires are rarely punished in this country. She won't turn to rust if she doesn't become president, she'll just go back to whatever hamptons bankers castle she chills at.

What does this post have to do with the actual discussion other than preaching from your soapbox? You still haven't explained how merely being someone's spouse and daring to achieve your own aspirations is such a heinous example of monarchy that it should be outlawed. So Michelle Obama should be barred from running for office? What has she done to warrant this? Not divorce her husband?

Also, all of these people (Obamas and Clintons) are "average" because unlike the Bush children they were not born into great wealth and elite political status. Your whole spiel runs pretty thin.

 

[brainchild]

I assume YouGov is legit pollster since they're with CBS. Did these latest Bernie numbers in NH and IA been talked about? Cuz goddamn Bernie is crushing her in both states.

Edit-It appears they have not.

NH
Bernie 52%
Clinton 30%

Iowa
Bernie 43%
Clinton 33%

Hot diggity dog.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a Bernie supporter...

I'll never understand how someone can get all sensationalist over a SINGLE POLLSTER. It's effectively meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It does not even matter who conducts the poll.

The beautiful thing about aggregate polls is that they account for biases from all sides due to the sheer variety in the sampling.

I'm not saying that there's no point to a single pollster, but their utility is far better when they are aggregated with other pollsters.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a Bernie supporter...

I'll never understand how someone can get all sensationalist over a SINGLE POLLSTER. It's effectively meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It does not even matter who conducts the poll.

The beautiful thing about aggregate polls is that they account for biases from all sides due to the sheer variety in the sampling.

I'm not saying that there's no point to a single pollster, but their utility is far better when they are aggregated with other pollsters.

I agree. It's also a shame this is the first wave of this pollster combination so we have no prior data to compare to. We have no idea what this poll would have shown 2 months ago to get an idea if they are over/under representing one of the candidates numbers.

It's also an online poll which adds a further level of problems.

 

[Teggy]

Trump tries his normal insult shtick with Pataki and Pataki brings out the knives. Not bad.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-george-pataki-twitter

 

[BertramCooper]

This week's debate set:

That's St. Ronald of Reagan's Air Force One, just to be clear.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Disappointed I will miss most, if not all, of this debate due to being in rush hour traffic.

 

[NeoXChaos]

This week's debate set:

That's St. Ronald of Reagan's Air Force One, just to be clear.

is it the actual one he used or a replica?

Disappointed I will miss most, if not all, of this debate due to being in rush hour traffic.

who is making the thread?

 

[BertramCooper]

is it the actual one he used or a replica?

Actual one, I believe.

The Gipper nob slobbering is going to be off the charts.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Actual one, I believe.

The Gipper nob slobbering is going to be off the charts.

Clearly, this will be Scott "I proposed to my wife on Ronald Reagan's birthday so I'd be sure I'd never forget the date" Walker's chance to shine, because nobody can nob slobber on Reagan harder than him.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It's not PollGAF anymore? But I just had a poll!

Registered voters:

Hillary Clinton 46
Donald Trump 43

All adults:

Hillary Clinton 51
Donald Trump 39

But yeah, don't vote, whatever who cares

 

[NeoXChaos]

It's not PollGAF anymore? But I just had a poll!

Registered voters:

Hillary Clinton 46
Donald Trump 43

All adults:

Hillary Clinton 51
Donald Trump 39

But yeah, don't vote, whatever who cares

At the rate polls are coming out we will have a poll everyday by somebody.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/down-ticket-races-2016-213138

 

[brainchild]

This week's debate set:

That's St. Ronald of Reagan's Air Force One, just to be clear.

 

[Tarkus]

Jeb!: "Low energy? This'll show em."

His political heroes