Support NeoGAF

[Cheebo]

Let's say, for arguments sake, that I and almost all of Bernie's supporters come through in 2018, and boot the Republicans out of The House, thus giving Bernie the super majority he'll need to get anything done.

This is nonsense. How do you expect Bernie fans to over-come the heavily gerrymandered map and dominate the vast majority of the electorate as a whole when Bernie can't even get a THIRD of the Democratic party behind him? There isn't enough Bernie fans to make a majority of the Dem party, let alone the nation as a whole.

 

[B-Dubs]

This gets to the heart of the matter; the fear that a Bernie Sanders presidency would hurt corporate profits.

 

[User 406]

 

[RustyNails]

Has Bernie supporters crossed the annoyance threshold set by the Ron Paul supporters yet?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Let's say, for arguments sake, that I and almost all of Bernie's supporters come through in 2018, and boot the Republicans out of The House, thus giving Bernie the super majority he'll need to get anything done.

Let's say I grow wings overnight and go flying around the world helping people in need. Would I call myself Bird Man or Man Bird?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Politico article about Democrats' efforts to retake the Senate in 2016. This stuck out.

The biggest surprise for Democrats so far is Kander.

He’s drawing attention from both sides. Republicans call him Jason “Pander” and have a staffer in a panda suit following him around.

 

[B-Dubs]

Let's say I grow wings overnight and go flying around the world helping people in need. Would I call myself Bird Man or Man Bird?

That's not even the craziest part of the post.

Politico article about Democrats' efforts to retake the Senate in 2016. This stuck out.

That's pretty funny.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Don't stop at 1M, go for 10M.

America Works.

 

[BertramCooper]

https://www.facebook.com/Seinfeld20...l_page_organic_allowed&video_container_type=0

 

[User 463088]

Let's say I grow wings overnight and go flying around the world helping people in need. Would I call myself Bird Man or Man Bird?

Birdperson, obviously.

Has Bernie supporters crossed the annoyance threshold set by the Ron Paul supporters yet?

When the poll unskewing started, some not only crossed the threshold, but set up camp.

 

[NeoXChaos]

This gets to the heart of the matter; the fear that a Bernie Sanders presidency would hurt corporate profits. But would it hurt the profits of all corporations?

Let's say, for arguments sake, that I and almost all of Bernie's supporters come through in 2018, and boot the Republicans out of The House, thus giving Bernie the super majority he'll need to get anything done. He then instigates the trillion dollar infrastructure program, that would put over a million Americans back to work, on $15 and higher (the likes of Structural Engineers would obviously be earning way more).

All those Americans, as well as being able to support themselves and perhaps a family, will have extra cash to spend on consumer goods and services, a driver of economic growth, no? Also, they would be able to afford health insurance, in states that have blocked Medicaid expansion (despite ultimately only costing them 10% of the cost...).

And what about all the extra jobs created in our necessary transition away from fossil fuels, hopefully including an explosion in fully electric vehicles, which we should be manufacturing in this country, with again, jobs that, at a minimum, pay a living wage. All driving our economy forward and at the same time, a step in the right direction on Global Warming.

So, I would contend that some industries would actually see significant growth and Koch Industries share price would never recover .

is 2016 your first presidential election? just wondering.

 

[Aaron Strife]

is 2016 your first presidential election? just wondering.

This reminds me very much of things i would say leading up to the 2008 election

 

[BertramCooper]

So, I would contend that some industries would actually see significant growth and Koch Industries share price would never recover .

Koch is not a publicly traded company.

 

[teiresias]

Koch is not a publicly traded company.

Obviously Bernie would force them go public after telling them how his mass of supporters would picket their headquarters building.

 

[User 463088]

Obviously Bernie would force them go public after telling them how his mass of supporters would picket their headquarters building.

Is this before or after they've marched on the Supreme Court and forced Scalia and Thomas to overturn Citizens United?

 

[Plumbob]

This gets to the heart of the matter; the fear that a Bernie Sanders presidency would hurt corporate profits. But would it hurt the profits of all corporations?

Let's say, for arguments sake, that I and almost all of Bernie's supporters come through in 2018, and boot the Republicans out of The House, thus giving Bernie the super majority he'll need to get anything done. He then instigates the trillion dollar infrastructure program, that would put over a million Americans back to work, on $15 and higher (the likes of Structural Engineers would obviously be earning way more).

All those Americans, as well as being able to support themselves and perhaps a family, will have extra cash to spend on consumer goods and services, a driver of economic growth, no? Also, they would be able to afford health insurance, in states that have blocked Medicaid expansion (despite ultimately only costing them 10% of the cost...).

And what about all the extra jobs created in our necessary transition away from fossil fuels, hopefully including an explosion in fully electric vehicles, which we should be manufacturing in this country, with again, jobs that, at a minimum, pay a living wage. All driving our economy forward and at the same time, a step in the right direction on Global Warming.

So, I would contend that some industries would actually see significant growth and Koch Industries share price would never recover .

I'm curious. What do you think the rate of full employment is?

 

[Officerrob]

This gets to the heart of the matter; the fear that a Bernie Sanders presidency would hurt corporate profits. But would it hurt the profits of all corporations?

Let's say, for arguments sake, that I and almost all of Bernie's supporters come through in 2018, and boot the Republicans out of The House, thus giving Bernie the super majority he'll need to get anything done. He then instigates the trillion dollar infrastructure program, that would put over a million Americans back to work, on $15 and higher (the likes of Structural Engineers would obviously be earning way more).

All those Americans, as well as being able to support themselves and perhaps a family, will have extra cash to spend on consumer goods and services, a driver of economic growth, no? Also, they would be able to afford health insurance, in states that have blocked Medicaid expansion (despite ultimately only costing them 10% of the cost...).

And what about all the extra jobs created in our necessary transition away from fossil fuels, hopefully including an explosion in fully electric vehicles, which we should be manufacturing in this country, with again, jobs that, at a minimum, pay a living wage. All driving our economy forward and at the same time, a step in the right direction on Global Warming.

So, I would contend that some industries would actually see significant growth and Koch Industries share price would never recover .

Are you trolling? I'm being 100% serious, because if not.........ho-ly shit

 

[Basileus777]

Who said PoliGAF fanfiction would die with PD?

 

[Daniel B·]

is 2016 your first presidential election? just wondering.

I moved to the U.S. in the fall of 07, and voted for Obama in 08 and 12.

P.S. I'm enjoying the GIFs etc, but I hope y'all aren't saying that it's impossible for Democrats to take the House in 2018, but, rather, you don't think the American people will rise to the challenge, i.e. vote in sufficient numbers to overcome all obstacles? If it's the latter, I have no trouble believing the American people can make history, with a huge turnout in the 2018 mid-terms.

 

[RPGamer92]

Just pointing it out that in exactly a year from now, we'll probably know who the next president will be

 

[NeoXChaos]

I moved to the U.S. in the fall of 07, and voted for Obama in 08 and 12.

P.S. I'm enjoying the GIFs etc, but I hope y'all aren't saying that it's impossible for Democrats to take the House in 2018, but, rather, you don't think the American people will rise to the challenge, i.e. vote in sufficient numbers to overcome all obstacles? If it's the latter, I have no trouble believing the American people can make history, with a huge turnout in the 2018 mid-terms.

Why in the world are you talking about 2018 when this fictional 2016 fantasy land did not produce a supermajority in the House and Senate for Bernie?

 

[Aaron Strife]

but, rather, you don't think the American people will rise to the challenge, i.e. vote in sufficient numbers to overcome all obstacles?

No not even a little

 

[Daniel B·]

Koch is not a publicly traded company.

Thanks for the heads up (I edited original to share price), as my contention still works without it .

 

[brainchild]

I just wish the bias coming from both the Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters didn't interfere with the productivity of these discussions.

Hillary and Bernie both have good and bad qualities, but overall, they're a hell of a lot better than what we have on the Republican side. If you can only say negative or positive things about Bernie or Hillary, regardless of what they say or do, then something is seriously wrong with that picture.

I don't understand the in-fighting. I pledge allegiance to no one. I just want our next president to be as good as they can be for the good of our country. If that's Bernie, great! If that's Hillary, that's fine too.

 

[Makai]

I'm curious. What do you think the rate of full employment is?

Yeah, 1 million jobs for $1 trillion when we're at full employment sounds bad.

 

[PantherLotus]

someone please explain wtf happened to poligaf in the past 2 pages.

 

[Daniel B·]

No not even a little

I guess you haven't noticed that Bernie is practically everywhere (he might actually want to take a breather). If, as Pesident, he brings that same zeal to the mid-terms, you can believe it, baby (just an expression) .

 

[brainchild]

Why in the world are you talking about 2018 when this fictional 2016 fantasy land did not produce a supermajority in the House and Senate for Bernie?

Well, theoretically, just because you didn't win congress at the presidential election, it doesn't necessarily mean you can't do it in the mid-terms.

Republican voters may outnumber Democratic voters in the mid-terms, but the amount of Republican voters that show up in the mid-terms is still relatively low compared to the amount of Republican voters that show up to vote for the Presidential Election. If you had all the Democratic voters from the presidential election show up again for the mid-terms, they'd outnumber the amount of Republicans that usually show up in the mid-terms and they'd win the House and the Senate, there's no doubt about that.

Of course, it's purely theoretical, but it's not impossible, even if it didn't happen during the presidential election.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I've just assumed Daniel is our anonymous confessor.

 

[B-Dubs]

Well, theoretically, just because you didn't win congress at the presidential election, it doesn't necessarily mean you can't do it in the mid-terms.

Republican voters may outnumber Democratic voters in the mid-terms, but the amount of Republican voters that show up in the mid-terms is still relatively low compared to the amount of Republican voters that show up to vote for the Presidential Election. If you had all the Democratic voters from the presidential election show up again for the mid-terms, they'd outnumber the amount of Republicans that usually show up in the mid-terms and they'd win the House and the Senate, there's no doubt about that.

Of course, it's purely theoretical, but it's not impossible, even if it didn't happen during the presidential election.

If it was going to happen though, it would be in a general election year. Some serious shit would need to go down for it to happen in an off-year.

 

[Daniel B·]

Well, theoretically, just because you didn't win congress at the presidential election, it doesn't necessarily mean you can't do it in the mid-terms.

Republican voters may outnumber Democratic voters in the mid-terms, but the amount of Republican voters that show up in the mid-terms is still relatively low compared to the amount of Republican voters that show up to vote for the Presidential Election. If you had all the Democratic voters from the presidential election show up again for the mid-terms, they'd outnumber the amount of Republicans that usually show up in the mid-terms and they'd win the House and the Senate, there's no doubt about that.

Of course, it's purely theoretical, but it's not impossible, even if it didn't happen during the presidential election.

O.k., my basic knowledge of the U.S electoral system has a few holes. So what percentage of House seats come up in a presidential election vs. the mid-terms? 100% vs ?

 

[brainchild]

If it was going to happen though, it would be in a general election year. Some serious shit would need to go down for it to happen in an off-year.

Practically speaking, you're right. But even if the chance is 0.0000000001% probability, it's still possible, which was my point.

 

[Makai]

As the only other Bernie supporter in PoliGAF, let me propose my theory of how Democrats will take over Congress in 2018. Consider all of the voters who have died since 2008. It's at least a few million people, enough to tip the balance. Democrats are assured victory if they prioritize registering them.

Spoiler

 

[B-Dubs]

O.k., my basic knowledge of the U.S electoral system has a few holes. So what percentage of House seats come up in a presidential election vs. the mid-terms? 100% vs ?

A few holes? That's putting it mildly. It's not about percentage of House seats.

Practically speaking, you're right. But even if the chance is 0.0000000001% probability, it's still possible, which was my point.

If we're going that route then sure, but there's no reason to even entertain such an eventuality.

 

[SL128]

O.k., my basic knowledge of the U.S electoral system has a few holes. So what percentage of House seats come up in a presidential election vs. the mid-terms? 100% vs ?

100% to 100%; the idea behind having a House and Senate is that the House is more representative of the current views of the nation (all seats every two years; seat numbers being based on a state's population), and the Senate maintains stability (1/3 of seats at a time at 6 year cycles for each set; 2 total seats per state regardless of population size).

 

[brainchild]

O.k., my basic knowledge of the U.S electoral system has a few holes. So what percentage of House seats come up in a presidential election vs. the mid-terms? 100% vs ?

The same amount. All of them.

 

[shinra-bansho]

There's some probability that a large object could impact the earth next year prior to there even being a US election and it will kill us all. Let us ponder the possibility.

 

[Makai]

There's some probability that a large object could impact the earth next year prior to there even being a US election and it will kill us all. Let us ponder the possibility.

The best argument against doing anything about climate change.

 

[Cheebo]

I guess you haven't noticed that Bernie is practically everywhere (he might actually want to take a breather). If, as Pesident, he brings that same zeal to the mid-terms, you can believe it, baby (just an expression) .

If he is everywhere, then why does he still poll so poorly still?

 

[brainchild]

There's some probability that a large object could impact the earth next year prior to there even being a US election and it will kill us all. Let us ponder the possibility.

I'm not really promoting the probability being favorable. NeoXChaos asked why they were having a hypothetical discussion about mid-terms without the presidential election producing a super majority and I gave him an answer.

As for the plausibility, while unlikely, it's not THAT low in probability. You'd just need to make sure that every Democratic voter that voted in the presidential election returned to vote in the mid-terms; something that doesn't happen even on the Republican side.

So the real probability has to do with what the chances are for a President to compel no less than 98% of the people who voted for him/her to vote again in the mid-terms. I guess some scientific polling could help us get an idea of the numbers, but it's hard to say. If the president made the incentive appealing enough, he/she might actually be able to pull it off.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm not really promoting the probability being favorable. NeoXChaos asked why they were having a discussion about mid-terms without the presidential election producing a super majority and I have him an answer.

As for the plausibility, while unlikely, it's not THAT low in probability. You'd just need to make sure that every Democratic voter returned to vote in the mid-terms; something that doesn't happen even on the Republican side.

So the real probability has to do with what the chances are for a President to compel no less than 98% of the people who voted for him to vote again in the mid-terms. I guess some scientific polling could help us get an idea of the numbers, but it's hard to say. If the president made the incentive appealing enough, he/she might actually be able to pull it off.

Honestly, it would take something on the level of a meteor to make it happen. It's not just about who the president is and how they frame it, there needs to be an unbelievably compelling reason to get that vote out. The GOP would basically need to try and privatize Social Security again for the Dems to win the House in the midterm election. The GOP is dumb, I'll grant you, but they aren't that dumb.

 

[Makai]

So the real probability has to do with what the chances are for a President to compel no less than 98% of the people who voted for him to vote again in the mid-terms. I guess some scientific polling could help us get an idea of the numbers, but it's hard to say. If the president made the incentive appealing enough, he/she might actually be able to pull it off.

"I'll give you $1000 dollars if you vote for me"

 

[Daniel B·]

For a brief moment in time, PoliGAF entered the Twilight Zone...

Back in "fantasy land" , so if this mythical critical mass of Bernie supporters somehow materialised, what would it also take for them the Democrats to carry the House? Just a big turnout?

 

[Tarkus]

I guess you haven't noticed that Bernie is practically everywhere (he might actually want to take a breather). If, as Pesident, he brings that same zeal to the mid-terms, you can believe it, baby (just an expression) .

You might be a bigger stan than Melkr. I'm enjoying your posts 😄

 

[Makai]

For a brief moment in time, PoliGAF entered the Twilight Zone...

Back in "fantasy land" , so if this mythical critical mass of Bernie supporters somehow materialised, what would it also take for them to carry the House? Just a big turnout?

I mean, you don't even need Bernie supporters. Our government would look quite different if everyone voted. The problem is...they don't vote. If Democrats knew how to turn out the vote without changing the law, they'd do it. Your hypothetical might as well be, "ok, assume there are no Republicans on the ballot. How do Democrats win?"

 

[B-Dubs]

For a brief moment in time, PoliGAF entered the Twilight Zone...

Back in "fantasy land" , so if this mythical critical mass of Bernie supporters somehow materialised, what would it also take for them to carry the House? Just a big turnout?

Pretty much. It would take turn-out numbers beyond what Obama was capable of. The House is so gerrymandered that it's basically impossible for anyone to do it. Jesus himself could come back, run as a Dem, promise everyone free blowjobs and ice cream, and he'd still have a hard time pulling it off. Doing it in an off-year is next to impossible and shouldn't even be entertained as a possibility.

 

[brainchild]

Honestly, it would take something on the level of a meteor to make it happen. It's not just about who the president is and how they frame it, there needs to be an unbelievably compelling reason to get that vote out. The GOP would basically need to try and privatize Social Security again for the Dems to win the House in the midterm election. The GOP is dumb, I'll grant you, but they aren't that dumb.

The chances of voters returning to vote in two-years are the same as a meteor striking Earth? I really don't think so.

Unfortunately, we have no hard data or scientific polling to make a fair assessment anyway, so the comparison is ridiculous.

 

[Basileus777]

For a brief moment in time, PoliGAF entered the Twilight Zone...

Back in "fantasy land" , so if this mythical critical mass of Bernie supporters somehow materialised, what would it also take for them to carry the House? Just a big turnout?

Yes, "just" a historically massive turnout. Nothing big.

 

[Makai]

Pretty much. It would take turn-out numbers beyond what Obama was capable of. The House is so gerrymandered that it's basically impossible for anyone to do it. Jesus himself could come back, run as a Dem, promise everyone free blowjobs and ice cream, and he'd still have a hard time pulling it off.

That would damage his support among his base.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The differential between the Midterms/Presidential hasn't been within 5% since the 1800s.