Coriolanus
Banned
Ooon the other hand, if that number keeps steadily ticking up, then her choice for vp kinda becomes much clearer
-
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
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Ooon the other hand, if that number keeps steadily ticking up, then her choice for vp kinda becomes much clearer
Is Sanders even trying to win? Why say this right before the debate? smh
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...-t-closed-presidential-leadership-gap-n516586
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...-t-closed-presidential-leadership-gap-n516586
Well, there's a few different explanations to this, some are far funnier than others.
Macho Madness
Member
Sanders thinks he can bring disenfranchised voters in by promising the world but not delivering it? He thinks he can do it better than Obama?
Well, by all means.
Black Republican
Member
" i be in these streets everyday son, where you at though?"
Coriolanus
Banned
I mean, he aint wrong.
Roland_Gunner
Member
But he doesn't address that the Sanders campaign hasn't shown the ability to create a political revolution again. Dem primary voters were down in both IA and NH. Given that there isn't a decent third candidate like Edwards, its a push at best.
And_Gignac
Member
He is probably talking about Michelle Alexander and Ta-Nehisi. (not endorsements per se, specially in the case of Michelle, but yeah...)
Are Democrats going to Reaganize Obama or what? He is not above criticism. (And Sanders isnt even doing so)
Well shame on him because Sanders was there. If thats going to be a line of attack its going to miserably fail and probably backfire.
Elaugaufein
Member
The inevitable Sanders endorsement of Clinton will reduce that percentage significantly (part of the reason its rising is that the primary has become more polarizing as Sanders has done unexpectedly well). There'll still be some loss because some of Sanders' vote just feels like the political establishment in general has betrayed them and they'd probably prefer Trump's populist rhetoric (and yes a Trump nomination actually seems like a serious possibility now) to Clinton and they'll just stay home if it ends up being Establishment vs Establishment. But those people never would have been there without Sanders in the first place so meh, its not really a loss.
And the Democratic Party has a pretty decent history of being meh in terms of inspiration* (Clinton stole the center, not inspired the base). Obama was an exception (and it looked like he may well have done damage there in his first term, but it's recovered reasonably well, given Sanders is still winning what was the 18-35 when Obama was running). They've won despite that before.
*Being inspiring might lead to Reagan vs Mondale. Even though the youngest people who were politically aware the last time Reagan ran for President are now 46 and that's being extremely generous. People who were born that year have been able to vote for 14 years now and by the next election there will be people voting who were born when those people became able to vote.
Candidates I think of as having a monolithic theme: Sanders, Ron Paul, Trump.
Candidates I think of as more thematically diffuse: Romney, Obama, W Bush, Kerry
I dunno, it's not obvious to me this is such a strength. I mean, it has a certain way of getting immediate appeal, but....
This is easy to agree with, and almost obvious. Like, Hillary, why is this not obvious?
It's really disappointing. She was a weak candidate in 2008 and the lessons she took from it were apparently all about electioneering. She's doing god's work with her policy proposals but at the end of the day that's only going to get the nerdy robotic assholes who spend too much time thinking about policy.
Coriolanus
Banned
Total, yes. Per candidate, tho?
Either way, it is indeed a problem that needs adressing, regardless of who ends up being the nom. As i keep stating, you either find a way to solve that shit or 18 gon destroy you. And hills offers no solution either.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
I just can't wait for Bernie Sanders to run out of chump change donations and for Hillary Clinton to roll through to the general election on the backs of donors to fight one of the richest candidates in election history.
Atomic Playboy
Member
Democracy died the second the powers-that-be convinced the American people there were only two real parties, and both just happen to be built around pro-corporate policies. Don't like the Democratic primary procedure of superdelegates? Don't vote for a Democrat in the general election... but we can't do that, because then a Republican will win, because there are literally only two options.
Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.
I don't see how the following statistic coming from NH isn't impressive
2016 Sanders - 151k
2000 McCain - 115k
2008 Clinton - 112k
2016 Trump - 100k
2012 Romney - 97k
Cesare Borgia
Banned
I don't think Obama is perfect in the leadership regard. He has a tendency to bristle when challenged if he views the challenge as inauthentic (sometimes he's right, sometimes not). But I don't think this issue can be discussed without first focusing on the extreme level of opposition he faced. House and senate republicans got literal hate mail in 2009 and 2010 simply for saying nice things about him, or appearing at the White House Easter event. The republican base's hate for the president really cannot be overlooked.
I don't think the initial pre-2010 group of House/senate republicans didn't have any personal issues with Obama; they disliked him in some regards but not nearly as much as they disliked Pelosi. Post 2010 though the House and senate received a batch of politicians who literally despised the president - and they got into office because they despised him more than their opponents.
I think Obama's presidency would look very different without that ugly 2010 wave. It wasn't really the loss or how large of a loss it was IMO, it was the type of politicians who came into office. Allen West and Ted Cruz and others with no interest in getting anything done or even doing their job.
On the flip side I think this also saved Obama's presidency in the eyes of liberals, because the alternative would be Obama and Boehner getting a lot of work done that would have angered the left.
I don't think the initial pre-2010 group of House/senate republicans didn't have any personal issues with Obama; they disliked him in some regards but not nearly as much as they disliked Pelosi. Post 2010 though the House and senate received a batch of politicians who literally despised the president - and they got into office because they despised him more than their opponents.
I think Obama's presidency would look very different without that ugly 2010 wave. It wasn't really the loss or how large of a loss it was IMO, it was the type of politicians who came into office. Allen West and Ted Cruz and others with no interest in getting anything done or even doing their job.
On the flip side I think this also saved Obama's presidency in the eyes of liberals, because the alternative would be Obama and Boehner getting a lot of work done that would have angered the left.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The problem is that there's no third party platform at the moment that would pull equally from liberal and conservative groups. Which means that any third party run is doomed because at least one of the others can still count on 45% of the national vote. We would basically need the current Democratic party to fracture into two at the same time as the Republican party
That...might actually happen in the next decade
POLITICAL REVOLUTION... when we have a very successful Democratic president already.
Veritigo_X
Member
She's right though. It's funny seeing how many people are fooled around here.
And_Gignac
Member
lol at we getting Oklahoma polls but not a single Nevada poll. What the fuck is going on
Dems
Clinton 41.5
Sanders 28.1
GOPs
Trump 30
Ted 25
Rubio 21
The poll was conducted before New Hampshire, though.
Thanks for the perspective. I am excited to see what the next goalpost will be.
Dems
Clinton 41.5
Sanders 28.1
GOPs
Trump 30
Ted 25
Rubio 21
The poll was conducted before New Hampshire, though.
Thanks for the perspective. I am excited to see what the next goalpost will be.
Atomic Playboy
Member
The problem is that our laws are all built around winner-take-all, so 5% of the vote is as good as 45% of the vote if your opponent gets 46%. What we need is proportional representation like you see in European democracies. A party gets 5% of the vote? They get 5% of the seats. Might not make much of a difference when it comes to the presidency, but you start breaking up the stranglehold of two parties on the legislative bodies of this country and you'll start to see a pretty dramatic shift in voting patterns as people no longer shy away from voting for the candidate that truly represents them, not just "they can win."
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is exactly why even though Sanders and Clinton both have next to no chance as passing significant legislation Clinton will be way more effective as eaking out progress.
This green lanternism and complete inability to realize this mass mobilization is fantasy is why Bernie would make a horrible president.
Salon and company have definitely given Kasich more press along the "he's not a moderate! he's evilllll" than anyone else has. It's like they're terrified their readership is thinking about voting for a Republican.
That said, I don't see what he would gain by vetoing the bill. Liberals will never vote for him anyhow.
Why would you say this before SC?!
Elaugaufein
Member
It'd only be a temporary schism though, I can't see a constitutional amendment happening in such an environment which is what what you'd need to stop a re coalescing since majoritarian systems tend to two party. So the only real result would be a realignment of voting blocs and maybe a change in the order of priorities. And as soon as that re coalescing happens you'll find money being fundamentally necessary to both of those new parties and thus taking over again.
TumblingHippo
Member
The gnashing of teeth at anyone who even suggests that they want to vote third party doesn't help things, either.
I'm sure that anyone who votes third party is aware of the consequences, and that it means the party they splinter from is going to lose because of it, but it gets tiresome how they blame the voter and not the party that is disconnecting from that voter.
Billy Crystal for President
ugaboga232
Member
Hillary doesn't even have good policy on healthcare on her website, its at best platitudes like bernie's plan and at worse even vaguer.
TBH thats the big sticker for me, so many ppl are sick or dying from preventable problems. For them the status quo is an abject failure.
TBH thats the big sticker for me, so many ppl are sick or dying from preventable problems. For them the status quo is an abject failure.
shinra-bansho
Member
NH 08 was a three way race. One could argue that increased overall turnout, but overall turnout on the Dem side has been lower.
Poor Brokemalley. Maybe Adam will take him in.
Poor Brokemalley. Maybe Adam will take him in.
benjipwns
Banned
I could get on board with adding a hundred seats to the house that are decided by a national PR vote. Maybe even 200. I like MMR/P like the Bundestag.
Along with a Constitutional Amendment that any Party with representation in Congress has automatic ballot status for the Presidency in all states for the two subsequent elections.
That also assumes they've splintered from one of the two parties.
The other system I've heard which seems reasonable is that the top vote-getter gets the lion's share of electoral votes, with the rest distributed proportionately. Still addresses complaints of votes "not mattering", and still makes third-party candidates more viable (as well as encouraging campaigning in states that aren't deep blue or red in the electoral sense.)
I don't really see as much of an issue in terms of legislative elections.
maabus1999
Member
Total votes for a candidate mean nothing; 2008 had multiple Dem candidates that split the vote up more than 2 ways. Same with 2012 and don't get me started on 2016.
It is the total turn out that truly matters. And the GOP technically beat the Dems (but again the have more campaigns knocking door to door).
I'm not going into them anymore. It's just the same shit again and again.
Black Republican
Member
looks like ALL the clinton emails are coming out, finally
benjipwns
Banned
I think legislative elections are far more important.
The Libertarian, Green, etc. parties waste way too many resources on Presidential and Gubernatorial and U.S. Senate elections because that determines ballot status for every race.
But Justin Amash or Ron Paul (RIP) could probably win their district as a Libertarian, there are a number of Democrats who could win as Greens or Democratic Socialists. Or they could have multiple ballot lines like in New York.
Some cities already have Greens and such on their city councils. They tell me there's a bunch of elected Libertarians somewhere. But I only know of the one who won in Aussieland due to donkey votes.
That builds party infrastructure much better than quixotic Presidential campaigns.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The more candidates there are, the more GoTV efforts you have. Again, I think we should wait for Super Tuesday before bemoaning turnout just yet.
Right what ever makes Bernie look good doesn't matter,
What matters is the GOP Circus where loads of Democrats voted for Dennis just to muddy the water when it was clear Bernie would win the Dem Primary.
I have everyone past Jeb bush beat but wtf at Rubio.
I think he's done pretty well for an intern.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Happens the same way in most political systems. You start at the most local level and build up concentrated pockets of local support, rinse and repeat. Mind you, I think bluntly speaking any presidential system is far more likely to have a two-party system than a parliamentary system because the president can definition be held only by one person at any given time and as Duverger's law shows, the number of candidates contesting an election is usually the number of potential winners plus one. Unlike parliamentary systems, you can't have a 'coalition' executive; so there's only ever room for two parties to contest the executive.
tl;dr presidencies suck.
Coriolanus
Banned
The argument is (generally) that he cant get a higher turnout than obama. For that, yes, you compare individual candidates. If he surpasses bams but total dem numbers are down, then that is not on him, but on the DNC being shite this cycle.
Veritigo_X
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked