NY primary is in April though. Prettttty sure Carson won't be in by then. I mean how much longer can he hang on after March 1st?
-
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
Hellllll naw. I even offered to make my avatar BobbyJ through Iowa if JBE wins it by 10 or more.
The gap is closing, but JBE's number remains stubbornly near or above 50%. That, along with really promising turnout stats thus far, is encouraging.
I'm thinking he wins this by less than 5%. Enough to make us whittle our nails down on Election Night.
==
And the immigration ruling gave me the same reaction: no matter what SCOTUS does, the GOP candidate will be forced to react to it. They can't afford to piss-off Hispanics, but they also can't dampen base turnout..
I'd love two sane parties to choose from, but remain convinced that the only way the GOP will change is if they lose repeatedly enough, especially to the point where their big donors decide to stay away.
There was a report a few days ago about how big donors weren't as active/giving yet during this GOP cycle, and almost everyone seemed to assume that they'd eventually jump into the process at some point. But what if, deep down, they know that the party can't win in this environment?
=====
(Another edit, so I don't double-post)
Now we have a state senate candidate running and ad that ties his opponent to "the Vitter-Jindal record."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=2NbLhy2mHHg
Nice use of the Jindal painting, hehe.. 😂
Coriolanus
Banned
Well, sure, but evidently one can't directly change their current crop of leaders, so the best one can do is ensure that they'll never get to hold both congress and the presidency at the same time. You've already got pretty good odds at one, so how does the party increase its chances with the other? (without resorting to the standard method of "lol, let the other party take the presidency for a while", obv)
User 463088
Banned
Well, I think the GOP can leverage the fact that they've got control of the white, Southern Christian bloc. That gives them a base to start with. Now, you may have to piss a few of them off in a Presidential year and hope you offset that loss with gains elsewhere.
Honestly, though, their best bet would be to get a non-batshit person through the primary without damaging them too much. I think someone like Kasich could have been that person. Rmoney definitely could have been.The problem is, though, their base isn't going to let them do anything other than keep out crazying the next person.
They need a "Come to Jesus" moment. I don't think they'll get it any time soon. They seem happy controlling the House at the expense of the Presidency. Their rich overlords are fine with the status quo because it's better than any type of progress at all.
Coriolanus
Banned
Well, yes. Sure. The thing is, as you've mentioned... this method seems to work very well at the municipal and state level, and then crashes and burns at the federal executive level.
Which is why i tried (and might've failed) to pose the question as "how do democrats take back congress and states, so that when Republicans do reorient and retake the presidency, they won't be able to inflict massive damage?", which one can also read as "what are dems trying to do to increase voter turnout outside of presidential elections?", although these are not exactly the same thing.
Tbh if reps manage a veto-proof majority in congress, that's already scary fucking territory, so that's the real concern.
I love - LOVE - that Obama has doubled Jindal's approval rating here. 42-20. Amazing.
Can't wait to see how some of the Vitter fans spin this one..
He's been curiously silent..
Holy shit, what is even going on down there? This is madness.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Why is this a thing? WHY?
Coriolanus
Banned
Why isn't this always a thing? WHY?
RastaMentality
Banned
This angle is amazing.
Comrades, rejoice 
.
The American Postal Workers Union (APWU), who represents 200,000 U.S. Postal Service employees and retirees from across all 50 states, has endorsed Bernie (source: ABC News):
Despite the ever increasing use of e-mail and other [electronic] messaging services, we should fight to keep the postal service (as you obviously can't email a physical copy of your latest PS4/XB1 game or a Blu-ray etc), as a reliable service, that is affordable for all Americans. Also, I'm sure Bernie would not only end these unwarranted and outrageous attacks, on the service, by Republican politicians, who would relish its demise (as it represents competition for commercial mail services), he would quite possibly expand the service too (I believe he proposed a banking initiative, for those who couldn't otherwise have a regular bank account).
.The American Postal Workers Union (APWU), who represents 200,000 U.S. Postal Service employees and retirees from across all 50 states, has endorsed Bernie (source: ABC News):
Despite the ever increasing use of e-mail and other [electronic] messaging services, we should fight to keep the postal service (as you obviously can't email a physical copy of your latest PS4/XB1 game or a Blu-ray etc), as a reliable service, that is affordable for all Americans. Also, I'm sure Bernie would not only end these unwarranted and outrageous attacks, on the service, by Republican politicians, who would relish its demise (as it represents competition for commercial mail services), he would quite possibly expand the service too (I believe he proposed a banking initiative, for those who couldn't otherwise have a regular bank account).
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
PFTCommenter is God.
Daniel B·;185191967 said:Comrades, rejoice
The American Postal Workers Union (APWU), who represents 200,000 U.S. Postal Service employees and retirees from across all 50 states, has endorsed Bernie, for President (source: ABC News):
Bernie had proposed Post Offices take up some banking duties in the past. So that's possibly another reason the Union has chosen to throw their endorsement his way.
Bernie said:
Obviously Republicans would be absolutely livid at such an idea
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ers-lets-turn-post-offices-into-banks/411589/
Ugh.
Manmademan
Member
Trump seems to be the only candidate who came to win this thing, damn
Basileus777
Member
Good, I hope Trump poisons and damages all of his primary competitors with those kinds of tactics.
Goddamn, Trump is going to win this or sink the party in the process.
Manmademan
Member
Can they really get more damaged for the general than they already are
Yeah, it's pretty clear that if he loses this thing, he's going to leave the winner incredibly bloodied.
---
And this latest LA polling still has me stunned. This was an eminently winnable race for the GOP - they had two other viable candidates who would've surely won, and they stuck with Vitter. *giggle*
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump could get Rubio to say he supports mass deportations.
What a smart move, and what an absolute piece of shit.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Brilliant move. Here's hoping he goes after Carson hard, but my guess is it's for Rubio.
RustyNails
Member
Trump's comments about having a Gestapo like "Deportation force" are so poisonous. It will poison the gop primary well even more, and is general election death.
Trump has been coasting ever since half-way through the second debate, he's still got a few gears of crazy he can shift up into if needed.
Yep, it would have sunk him if they had pressed. Now he's got to hope that no one noticed and that the conservative media doesn't care enough about him to point it out.
Black Mamba
Member
Support for Operation Wetback was enough crazy for months, let alone a single debate.
That will get any Super PAC GE ad going, no matter the nominee.
"Rubio supports Trump's deportation plan. The same one from the 1950s known as Operation: Wetback where thousands of Mexicans were deported in busses some likened to slave ships."
Etc.
As much as I hate Super PACs and such, it's time for the GOP to get a dose of their own medicine. The Super PACs should be nasty with regards to GOP immigration stances.
On a separate note, Rubio today claimed Ted Cruz supports his immigration plan which is bizarre since Ted Cruz most certainly does not agree with Rubio.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Daniel B·;185191967 said:Comrades, rejoice
The American Postal Workers Union (APWU), who represents 200,000 U.S. Postal Service employees and retirees from across all 50 states, has endorsed Bernie (source: ABC News):
Despite the ever increasing use of e-mail and other [electronic] messaging services, we should fight to keep the postal service (as you obviously can't email a physical copy of your latest PS4/XB1 game or a Blu-ray etc), as a reliable service, that is affordable for all Americans. Also, I'm sure Bernie would not only end these unwarranted and outrageous attacks, on the service, by Republican politicians, who would relish its demise (as it represents competition for commercial mail services), he would quite possibly expand the service too (I believe he proposed a banking initiative, for those who couldn't otherwise have a regular bank account).
Of all the products to choose as an example of something you can't send digitally, you chose video games and movies?
Manmademan
Member
That would only make rubios numbers go up
Like I said, he's coasting. It's the same crazy shit he opened with, he finally let us put a name to it is all. He's still got room to ratchet up the crazy.
Black Mamba
Member
DISASTER. DOOM. DARKNESS.
I don't understand how conservatives are able to complain about political correctness "going mad" when the most egregious example of "political correctness" is the yearly conservative Christian persecution complex manifestation in "the War on Christmas".
It is absurd that a coffee shop not having snowflakes on its cups or a single mall not displaying secular Christmas decorations constitutes a "War on Christians" - ironically, the current reactions of the conservative media to not being exclusively catered to is almost as extreme as their hypotheticals on what "political correctness gone mad" would look like in the future. Christianity is basically the "default" religion in America - why are people getting so upset when stores opt for a neutral expression or one that includes everyone?
My theory is this stems from the "default" archetype for a modern person not actually being a true neutral, but rather the most statistically common set of answers to demographic questions. The "baseline" of what a person is for society should be a non-descript, neutral person - instead, over the years society has pushed one archetype as the one to be conformed to and marginalized the others. This has not only marginalized people who do not fit this archetype and attempted to mold them to fit the arbitrary standard, but has interestingly enough diluted the culture shoehorned into the "default" prototypic schema as well. "Western Christian white male" culture being forced on everyone has ironically led to identity issues for western white males because they feel as though they have no identity of their own - because they made what their identity is the default standard for what a person should be! Now that society is starting to transition towards a neutral schema as the "default", these people feel as if they are "losing" their culture, even though if it is no longer pushed onto everyone they will actually regain a culture. It is the conflict of wanting to push their culture onto everyone while still remaining unique, and their push-back as the "default" shifts to a true neutral - even if that would solve their identity problems.
I think this explains a lot of contradictions I've noticed in the disconnects between conservative rhetoric regarding "political correctness", the fact that despite their rhetoric condemning "political correctness" they are the most extreme about being "politically correct" towards their group, and the fact that they are already the mainstream culture being prescribed as a default. This could also explain why they hold such negative views towards previously marginalized cultures regaining equality as the baseline archetype that humans judge each other against shifts towards a true neutral as opposed to everyone being judged against the "standard" western Christian white male. It also seems like a reasonable explanation to why so many people are latching onto the Confederates as "white culture" when they've already succeeding in setting their own "white culture" as the default.
Any thoughts on this line of reasoning? I might make a thread on this as Christmas gets closer, feels like a point that needs to be made and that a good discussion on some apparent logical inconsistencies could be had.
It is absurd that a coffee shop not having snowflakes on its cups or a single mall not displaying secular Christmas decorations constitutes a "War on Christians" - ironically, the current reactions of the conservative media to not being exclusively catered to is almost as extreme as their hypotheticals on what "political correctness gone mad" would look like in the future. Christianity is basically the "default" religion in America - why are people getting so upset when stores opt for a neutral expression or one that includes everyone?
My theory is this stems from the "default" archetype for a modern person not actually being a true neutral, but rather the most statistically common set of answers to demographic questions. The "baseline" of what a person is for society should be a non-descript, neutral person - instead, over the years society has pushed one archetype as the one to be conformed to and marginalized the others. This has not only marginalized people who do not fit this archetype and attempted to mold them to fit the arbitrary standard, but has interestingly enough diluted the culture shoehorned into the "default" prototypic schema as well. "Western Christian white male" culture being forced on everyone has ironically led to identity issues for western white males because they feel as though they have no identity of their own - because they made what their identity is the default standard for what a person should be! Now that society is starting to transition towards a neutral schema as the "default", these people feel as if they are "losing" their culture, even though if it is no longer pushed onto everyone they will actually regain a culture. It is the conflict of wanting to push their culture onto everyone while still remaining unique, and their push-back as the "default" shifts to a true neutral - even if that would solve their identity problems.
I think this explains a lot of contradictions I've noticed in the disconnects between conservative rhetoric regarding "political correctness", the fact that despite their rhetoric condemning "political correctness" they are the most extreme about being "politically correct" towards their group, and the fact that they are already the mainstream culture being prescribed as a default. This could also explain why they hold such negative views towards previously marginalized cultures regaining equality as the baseline archetype that humans judge each other against shifts towards a true neutral as opposed to everyone being judged against the "standard" western Christian white male. It also seems like a reasonable explanation to why so many people are latching onto the Confederates as "white culture" when they've already succeeding in setting their own "white culture" as the default.
Any thoughts on this line of reasoning? I might make a thread on this as Christmas gets closer, feels like a point that needs to be made and that a good discussion on some apparent logical inconsistencies could be had.
This is a terrible, weird endorsement ad for Vitter: https://youtu.be/DKr3Y1OXQ3k
RustyNails
Member
Chris Cilizza, the WaPo guy that's been reporting nonstop about Hillary's emails for the past year has a new article today: "Why aren't Clinton's personal exaggerations bigger news?"
When will WaPo fire this shrill?
When will WaPo fire this shrill?
"What defines us is how we get up."
You'd think they'd all be a little more careful with their phrasing all things considered.
RastaMentality
Banned
Christians will tell you companies trying to appease Muslims and Atheists by removing "Christmas imagery" and saying "Happy Holidays" is the most PC thing one can do because we're abandoning our roots or something of the sort.
I don't think i've ever witness such a wave of persecution complex in all my life. Are christians that afraid that they are losing a grip on... Something? Even though they are far more visible and have infiltrated such a large swatch of government than ever before?
Which is stupid because I was always taught that your relationship with God was between you and God. Not you, God, and coorperate America.
Well, they can't help it. They consider it an atheist symbol and it's probably about as offensive as "God is dead" billboards.
And yet, I was so careful to mention, "physical copy"...
You do get that some people still prefer physical copies of their media, because, for games, it means you can resell them, and for movies, as highlighted in the recent [thread=1137746]thread[/thread], Blu-ray will likely offer the very best experience, for some time to come (as it can use high bit rates for video and lossless 7.1 surround sound, that are not offered by most streaming services and / or, users internet connection couldn't presently accommodate).
User 463088
Banned
I want it to be clear I'm not bad mouthing all Christians. I grew up going to church every time the doors were open. I went to a Christian school. There are some wonderful, wonderful Christians in this world. There are some shitty ones too. Just like every other group of people. And I'm not painting all Christians with what I'm saying. I'm talking about mainly the Evangelical "Everyone Hates Us" subset.
But, for an Evangelical Christian their entire worldview is wrapped up in their religion. There is no way for them to separate their religion from anything else. They believe that Jesus told them that the world will hate them. That the world will ridicule them. It doesn't matter that they are the majority religion in this country. It doesn't matter that they literally hold all the power when it comes to what is "acceptable religion." When something goes against their interpretation of scripture, it simply cannot just be a difference of opinion. It cuts to the deepest heart of their faith. If they believe in a verbal plenary interpretation of the Bible, there is zero wiggle room. It cannot happen, because if you pull at one thread, no matter how small, the entire thing will unravel. Everything contrary to their view is an attack on every, single thing they believe. It doesn't matter what the facts say. The facts have to be wrong so that their beliefs can go on unchecked.
It's very, very scary.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Daniel B·;185205737 said:
Oh, no. Don't worry. I get what you were going for. Just thought it was funny to pick those two products, from all things.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked