• 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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
The argument isn't that Sanders will do worse with more exposure, it's that he'll do worse with more targeting by Republican oppo campaigns.

Why? What are they going to do, point out he's a socialist? Nobody cares. Literally the first thing you hear about Sanders is "Old Jewish socialist". The number of people who know who Sanders is but don't know he's a socialist is almost certainly >1% of the electorate. It's not going to take purchase. Yes, people don't like the concept of a socialist in the abstract, but they like Sanders. He's not generic S, so to speak, he's a charismatic and popular candidate.

This is what I mean about exposure. Attack ads work when they persuade people that a candidate has some negative characteristic that they previously didn't think they have. People already think Sanders is a socialist. They don't care. It's an exposed issue, attack ads aren't going to do shit.
 

Kangi

Member
Unless there are new polls I'm missing... Bernie beats Hilary against all the Republican noms in the GE.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=194607528&postcount=3338

(GE matchup polls in this stage of the game still don't mean much, though.)
Where have you heard that? I always hear candidates need to be weary of primary comments haunting them in the general.

I think in Hillary's case, it should help. Obama even commented that she seemed rusty. She has the potential to come out of this getting more liberal support than she previously had, and even if she comes out of it with a "scandal" dogging her... well, when has a scandal sunk a Clinton?
 

pigeon

Banned
So I guess incentive is a myth?

You don't have to guess, you can just look at the record. Incentives don't touch people's intrinsic motivation. If somebody's motivated to succeed and care about the quality of their work, they will do that regardless of whether they'll receive a bonus (and the bonus will probably hurt that by being less than they expect or by implying they only care about their work to get a bonus). If somebody's not motivated to succeed, then they'll just find the optimal way to get the most benefit from the incentive without actually doing more work. This is pretty well known!

How many people do you actually know who would basically do a shitty job, but actually do a great one because they're focused on the monetary advantage they'd get? Because I know exactly zero.

Also, I'm not personally against all social programs, but I also think Sanders plan or a full minimum basic income is completely unsustainable. There isn't enough money to tax (if there is taxing that much would wreck the economy) to fund these programs. Under Bernie's plan, you are already capping the rich at what according to some economists is the highest point you can tax while maximizing revenue. His plan doesn't even include a basic income. The math just doesn't work out.

Money exists to aid in the distribution of wealth.

We certainly have enough wealth to feed/clothe/shelter all Americans.

So saying that we don't have enough MONEY is kind of a figure/ground confusion. For example, if we need to implement a basic income by creating government-run food dispensaries, that's an option that gets around monetary concerns entirely.

In addition, economic growth is more than just people spending their earnings (which is important). The creation of small business is vital to economic growth. This is counter to the type of government and tax environment that is required to fund these types of programs.

This is exactly the opposite of the truth.

The biggest obstacle in the way of creating a small business is the lash of hunger -- without a large nest egg to start off, you simply can't do it. There are too many ongoing costs you have to support for you to be able to sustain the ramp-up of a new business. Food, shelter, healthcare, education simply get in the way. That's actually a key part of the capitalist model! That's how rentiers get you to rent instead of own.

If people had a basic income to rely on they'd have much more freedom to create small businesses because they could attempt things without being afraid of losing their homes if it went wrong.
 
The reason general election polls mean nothing at this point is because it's not the general election. All of the Republican attacks have been against Hillary. Virtually none for Bernie. If he gets the nomination, the scrutiny intensifies by 1000%, the Republican attacks become huge and those numbers can change drastically.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
The reason general election polls mean nothing at this point is because it's not the general election. All of the Republican attacks have been against Hillary. Virtually none for Bernie. If he gets the nomination, the scrutiny intensifies by 1000%, the Republican attacks become huge and those numbers can change drastically.

The Republicans really haven't done shit to Clinton since Benghazi failed. They're too busy taking potshots at each other. Like, the only significant attack on Clinton from a Republican I can remember recently is Trump's bathroom break comments.
 

pigeon

Banned
Why? What are they going to do, point out he's a socialist?

I don't know what they're going to do. That's, like, the whole point of oppo research. If I knew it wouldn't be hidden dirt in the backstory of Sanders's life to find and expose during the political campaign.

Presidential campaigns in America involve a period of scrutiny that is basically unheard of in any other situation in one's life. No president has succeeded without weathering major issues that come out during this period involving events in their past. But plenty of candidates have failed because they didn't reckon with it!

But imagining that the negative stories that have CURRENTLY been run are the worst possible stories that anybody could run about Sanders is simply naive. Remember, it only took two weeks for them to find a paper where Sanders talks about white women's Negro rape fantasies. There's still a whole year!

The only candidate who I am not worried about when it comes to oppo research is the candidate who has already been through literally two decades of oppo research and survived -- Hillary Clinton. I am confident there's nothing in her history that could come out and destroy her because if there was it already would have.
 
Why do we keep coming back to this point.

Unless there are new polls I'm missing... Bernie beats Hilary against all the Republican noms in the GE.

Bernie has never been exposed to pure negative campaigning the GOP will throw at him...especially on his raising taxes proposal. I wouldn't take a poll about electability ANY candidate seriously until all the primaries are over.
 
That website killed my phone. Few things:

1. I want Obama to endorse Hillary for the sole reason that he enjoys tremendous support amongst the democratic electorate. So why not use that goodwill? If he waits till GE, all that goodwill is going to get stretched over to the GE electorate. Meaning, his endorsement then will not help as much as it can now.

2. Obama probably will not endorse her as he wants things to stay least noisy as possible. That's just who he is. He would want Team Hillary to pull it off on their own. If anything, mayhaps the FLOTUS can give an endorsement and give a few speeches for her?

3. This is all moot. Bernie campaign is going to the woodshed on March 2st.
 
I didn't select polls. I quote the final poll released by every single pollster to poll NH. So, I call bullshit on you. Secondly, it had exactly to do with what you said. Sanders beat expectations in NH. You denied this, and you are wrong.

I said Bernie won as expected and when I said not what some people thought. I meant that to some people , she didn't as much as they thought because she lost as what was expected to them. The post was in general( which is why I didn't quote anyone) and a post to what people said in the last page and a few pages before. Yes you did because I was talking about double digits and nothing else , but you end choosing some polls that was proving my point. You took more out of my post than there was any need to.
 

Holmes

Member
The Republicans really haven't done shit to Clinton since Benghazi failed. They're too busy taking potshots at each other. Like, the only significant attack on Clinton from a Republican I can remember recently is Trump's bathroom break comments.
Are you even paying attention? How many times was Hillary (and Obama) attacked in the last debate? They started saying Sanders' name but it was kiddy glove stuff.
 

Kangi

Member
The Republicans really haven't done shit to Clinton since Benghazi failed. They're too busy taking potshots at each other. Like, the only significant attack on Clinton from a Republican I can remember recently is Trump's bathroom break comments.

Some candidates at the debates spend half the time talking about her. Republican ads in my state specifically attack her and pose themselves as the best candidate to take her on. She is posed as the constant enemy that must be taken on come November. They've been trying to take her poll numbers down since long before she even announced she was running for president.

She's like the freakin' antichrist to these people.
 

noshten

Member
The argument isn't that Sanders will do worse with more exposure, it's that he'll do worse with more targeting by Republican oppo campaigns.

The only "Republican" who will actively attack Sanders is Trump, because he is probably afraid that in open primaries a lot of the un-committed might jump on the Sanders bandwagon. Especially if his opposition starts to thin out some swing voters can actually cost him the nomination. He got beat by Sanders in NH - so I fully expect at least until Nevada and SC for Trump to attack Sanders more than Hillary. I honestly think his internal polling probably reflects this - he wants to run against Clinton, because he knows that in a GE against Sanders he is going to be weaker and have fewer arguments.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Right. I just don't get mostly how socialists (particularly Marxists) can be so sure that socialism means democracy and then turn a blind eye towards what actually happened in the USSR which was totally undemocratic.

I think it's pretty easy to argue that socialism in Russia and China was rotten from the get-go. It's not like these were people who loved democracy and came to power by getting elected and only later did everything go bad. I don't think that a socialist who thinks that the government should adopt socialist policies as a result of socialists winning free elections has much to answer for here. Only socialists who want to get to socialism by armed revolution need to grapple with this.
 

damisa

Member
The Republicans really haven't done shit to Clinton since Benghazi failed. They're too busy taking potshots at each other. Like, the only significant attack on Clinton from a Republican I can remember recently is Trump's bathroom break comments.

Have you watched any Republican debates or town halls? It's all trashing on Obama/Hillary. Bernie is barely ever mentioned
 

Plumbob

Member
Why do we keep coming back to this point.

Unless there are new polls I'm missing... Bernie beats Hilary against all the Republican noms in the GE.

Some valid concerns for messaging in the general:

Bernie is a socialist.
Bernie is an atheist.
Bernie will raise taxes on the middle class.
Bernie has no foreign policy credentials.

Points 1-3 will be hammered over and over and over. Favorability at this stage doesn't reflect where things will be come October.
 

Makai

Member
Some valid concerns for messaging in the general:

Bernie is a socialist.
Bernie is an atheist.
Bernie will raise taxes on the middle class.
Bernie has no foreign policy credentials.

Points 1-3 will be hammered over and over and over. Favorability at this stage doesn't reflect where things will be come October.
2 and 4 are covered if Trump is the nominee.
 
That website killed my phone. Few things:

1. I want Obama to endorse Hillary for the sole reason that he enjoys tremendous support amongst the democratic electorate. So why not use that goodwill? If he waits till GE, all that goodwill is going to get stretched over to the GE electorate. Meaning, his endorsement then will not help as much as it can now.

2. Obama probably will not endorse her as he wants things to stay least noisy as possible. That's just who he is. He would want Team Hillary to pull it off on their own. If anything, mayhaps the FLOTUS can give an endorsement and give a few speeches for her?

3. This is all moot. Bernie campaign is going to the woodshed on March 2st.

Obama is going to vote in march http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/264190-key-dem-endorsements-elude-clinton

Although, another article said he won't endorse anyone during the primary. I guess he won't officially endorse anyone at least not yet.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'm confused as to why the U.S.S.R. is being touted as a successful socialist state. Firstly, it wasn't socialist, given that the means of the production were controlled by the government rather than the workers and workers had effectively no input into the government
Revisionist!

The workers ran the government through soviet democracy which unlike the decadent West is true democracy because it prevented the bourgeoise from overriding the desires of the proletariat.

I think it's pretty easy to argue that socialism in Russia and China was rotten from the get-go. It's not like these were people who loved democracy and came to power by getting elected and only later did everything go bad. I don't think that a socialist who thinks that the government should adopt socialist policies as a result of socialists winning free elections has much to answer for here. Only socialists who want to get to socialism by armed revolution need to grapple with this.
Revisionist!

Only a revolution through force can achieve a socialist society.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Are you even paying attention? How many times was Hillary (and Obama) attacked in the last debate? They started saying Sanders' name but it was kiddy glove stuff.

I went and searched the transcript for the 6th debate. There's one mention of her from Christie, but he doesn't attack anything, he just says "and she'd continue Obama's policies" which is bad.

There's an attack from Bush on Clinton's weak foreign policy stance here:

BUSH: No. And worse — worse yet, to be honest with you, Hillary Clinton would be a national security disaster. Think about it. She wants to continue down the path of Iran, Benghazi, the Russian reset, Dodd-Frank, all the things that have — that have gone wrong in this country, she would be a national security mess. And that is wrong.

Rubio then agrees with him.

Slightly later, Cruz attacks her on campaign finance.

So you know the New York Times and I don’t have exactly have the warmest of relationships. Now in terms of their really stunning hit piece, what they mentioned is when I was running for senate — unlike Hillary Clinton, I don’t have masses of money in the bank, hundreds of millions of dollars.

Carson has something weird and incomprehensible about Clinton and guns.

Christie says she'll raise taxes.
And I’m the only one up on this stage who back in April put forward a detailed entitlement reform plan that will save over $1 trillion, save Social Security, save Medicare, and avoid this — avoid what Hillary Rodham Clinton will do to you.
Because what she will do is come in and she will raise Social Security taxes. Bernie Sanders has already said it. And she is just one or two more poll drops down from even moving further left than she’s moved already to get to the left of Bernie on this.

he also says this about Sanders, though, so it's not an attack only Clinton got.

The final Clinton jibe is this, from Cruz:

I want to speak to all of those maddened by political correctness, where Hillary Clinton apologizes for saying all lives matter. This will end. It will end on January 2017.

So, to sum, Clinton got the following attacks: weak foreign policy, taking money from lobbyists, liberal on guns, would raise taxes, overly PC. Sanders also got attacked for raising taxes. That's a moot between them. Sanders is better than Clinton on guns, so that attack is less effective. Ditto for taking money from lobbyists. So at most, in terms of 'evil attacks that Reps have made against Clinton they haven't yet against Sanders' you have weak on foreign policy and overly PC. But Sanders definitely has been quite viciously attacked on foreign policy - by Clinton!

Also, Trump, the Republiacn frontrunner, didn't attack Clinton once in the whole of the sixth debate. Rubio only agreed with something Bush said. Cruz said "she's PC" and attacked her campaign finance. If you think this is a sustained attack, man are you setting some low expectations. The most vicious attacker of Clinton was Christie, a total non-entity!

So we're basically just left with overly PC in terms of attack-differences between Sanders and Clinton. That's fuck all.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I swear, I don't think Crab lived through the Bush/Kerry campaign at all.

Swiftboat worked precisely because people DIDN'T think Kerry was a coward. If Sanders was claiming he wasn't a socialist, but we had tapes of him secretly admitting to it, you might have a point. As it is, people know he's a socialist already. Like, it's already out there. It's fact number one you learn about Sanders. What are you supposed to do with it?
 

benjipwns

Banned
Ezra Klein: The rise of Donald Trump is a terrifying moment in American politics
On Monday, Donald Trump held a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, where he merrily repeated a woman in the crowd who called Ted Cruz a pussy. Twenty-four hours later, Donald Trump won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide.

I'm not here to clutch my pearls over Trump's vulgarity; what was telling, rather, was the immaturity of the moment, the glee Trump took in his "she said it, I didn't" game. The media, which has grown used to covering Trump as a sideshow, delighted in the moment along with him — it was funny, and it meant clicks, takes, traffic. But it was more than that. It was the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president showing off the demagogue's instinct for amplifying the angriest voice in the mob.

It is undeniably enjoyable to watch Trump. He's red-faced, discursive, funny, angry, strange, unpredictable, and real. He speaks without filter and tweets with reckless abandon. The Donald Trump phenomenon is a riotous union of candidate ego and voter id. America's most skilled political entertainer is putting on the greatest show we've ever seen.

It's so fun to watch that it's easy to lose sight of how terrifying it really is.
Oh Ezra...*pinches cheeks*
 
Swiftboat worked precisely because people DIDN'T think Kerry was a coward. If Sanders was claiming he wasn't a socialist, but we had tapes of him secretly admitting to it, you might have a point. As it is, people know he's a socialist already. Like, it's already out there. It's fact number one you learn about Sanders. What are you supposed to do with it?
Thats not how swiftboating works
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Actually I'm seeing a new narrative develop in the conservative blogosphere regarding this:

They're BOTH socialists, but at least Bernie is up front about it, while Hillary continues to lie.

Also, this. Every Republican will attack Clinton for being a socialist anyway, and then doubly so for being dishonest about it.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
So Poli-GAF, if South Carolina results are as they are polling now* with Trump receiving 36%, Cruz 20%, and Marco Ruboto at 13%, how does the rest of the Republican nomination play out? Could Jeb? really push forward getting fourth place at 10%?

*The last poll taken was January 23rd, so these percentages may have changed significantly.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
The reason why Obama is a socialist!!! didn't catch on beyond the far reaches of the right wing sphere is because he wasn't a socialist. The same is true of Hillary. That is not the case with Sanders, who is a socialist.
 

dramatis

Member
Finally found the results from my small town, which I refused to canvass in: Bernie won by 33 points. The caveat is 69% of voters took the Republican ticket. More people voted for Trump and Christie than Hillary and Bernie.
I feel like the turnout numbers for the Republican side are more scary than any other numbers. Iowa also featured great turnout for Republicans. I wonder what this means for the general.

Why do we keep coming back to this point.

Unless there are new polls I'm missing... Bernie beats Hilary against all the Republican noms in the GE.
It bothers me that people keep reciting those national polls. Aside from the question of accuracy, in the end the general election boils down to swing states, so to me concentrated polling of expected swing states would make a better picture of how the candidates would fare against each other in a general election, not national polls. And in the end that would still be questionable because of the current situation of "Not general election yet".

I said this earlier in the thread and considering the place here it really is a futile gesture, but I think people are going too bananas over polls.
 
The reason why Obama is a socialist!!! didn't catch on beyond the far reaches of the right wing sphere is because he wasn't a socialist. The same is true of Hillary. That is not the case with Sanders, who is a socialist.

Well now it's bad word with liberals now, amazingly.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
So Poli-GAF, if South Carolina results are as they are polling now* with Trump receiving 36%, Cruz 20%, and Marco Ruboto at 13%, how does the rest of the Republican nomination play out? Could Bush really push forward getting fourth place at 10%?

*The last poll taken was January 23rd, so these percentages may have changed significantly.

I think the real question is how Rubio/Bush plays out. If Rubio takes 3rd and Bush takes the 4th with less than 10%, then he gets no delegates. I think that would probably force him to drop out of the race. That's bad because Kasich and Carson will get no delegates and presumably also drop out (or at least become electorally irrelevant), and so you'd have the Rubio-Trump-Cruz crystallization that could lead to a Rubio resurgence. If Rubio takes 3rd and Bush takes 4th with more than 10%, they get equal delegates or Rubio only one more and Bush-Rubio continues to be a race. Ditto for the other way round. If Rubio gets less than 10%, the media will sell it as the debate having killed him and a total game-over. Race becomes Trump-Cruz-Bush.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I feel like the turnout numbers for the Republican side are more scary than any other numbers. Iowa also featured great turnout for Republicans. I wonder what this means for the general.

This is why a Sanders nomination is so vital, though. Republican numbers are up because independents (not registered independents, self-identified independents, the two are different) have been overwhelmingly drawn into the Republicans. Trump and Cruz between them have politicized a group that didn't have much of a voice in American politics. I know it makes no sense to people in PoliGAF, but Sanders also competes for that group. They know the world is wrong and want someone to fix it. Clinton does appallingly among self-identified independents. You would be ceding a significant proportion of the new electorate to the Republicans.
 
South Carolina is super racist so that's a great state for Trump. Nevada's Republicans are ridiculously conservative and it's a caucus so that's a great state for Cruz... Going to be interesting to see how the race evolves if Trump and Cruz keep getting these massive victories before heading into the SEC primary.
 
I think the real question is how Rubio/Bush plays out. If Rubio takes 3rd and Bush takes the 4th with less than 10%, then he gets no delegates. I think that would probably force him to drop out of the race. That's bad because Kasich and Carson will get no delegates and presumably also drop out (or at least become electorally irrelevant), and so you'd have the Rubio-Trump-Cruz crystallization that could lead to a Rubio resurgence. If Rubio takes 3rd and Bush takes 4th with more than 10%, they get equal delegates or Rubio only one more and Bush-Rubio continues to be a race. Ditto for the other way round. If Rubio gets less than 10%, the media will sell it as the debate having killed him and a total game-over. Race becomes Trump-Cruz-Bush.

South Carolina is winner take all, so Rubio getting 3rd or 4th and the 10% barrier don't matter unless he gets 1st in one district too (but that would be largely independent of the statewide vote anyway).
 
Some valid concerns for messaging in the general:

Bernie is a socialist.
Bernie is an atheist.
Bernie will raise taxes on the middle class.
Bernie has no foreign policy credentials.

Points 1-3 will be hammered over and over and over. Favorability at this stage doesn't reflect where things will be come October.

This. Favorability numbers don't mean much right now, there are few questions if Bernie is nominee:

1. Does America want an Atheist President? Count in this that such a big population of Hispanic and African American population are very Christian.

2. Does America want a President that will be more liberal than Obama? America went through the rough and tumble roll-out of Obamacare, do they really want single payer? So many VA scandals, can government handle healthcare then? Think about the fact, Sanders most passionate supports are on their parents Medical insurance (thanks Obama). The GE voting public are not.

3. With all of the above is America ready for tax increases for those who earn less than 250k. Obama's argument against his proposed tax increases was always that 95% of small business make less than 200k per year. Under Bernie's proposals that will not be true.

4. Bernie's proposals have not received proper scrutiny. Will they even stand up to that kind of scrutiny? And that goes beyond just wanting single payer healthcare.

5. How the hell does all this pass through Congress?

2 and 4 are covered if Trump is the nominee.

How does that matter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom