• 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.
I have everyone past Jeb bush beat but wtf at Rubio.

Wasn't there some rumours going around about him having bad debts a bit earlier in the campaign ? And some speculation about that being why Romney didn't take him as VP.

For O'Malley it seems like he's got some significant loans out for his children's education which are holding down his net worth (since they are liabilities). His income is actually pretty good.and seems like stuff he'd be capable of doing for at least the next decade.

(It is pretty weird though because it seems like he's saved ~nothing over the course of his career. Which seems unlikely. He's probably got some other liabilities that are weight that down.)
 

benjipwns

Banned
MDI0ZTI4NjliMSMvdXdCa3ZzOW5wLS11ZTR2aDdXWjFVdVQ3M0FvPS9maXQtaW4vOTAweDkwMC9maWx0ZXJzOm5vX3Vwc2NhbGUoKTpxdWFsaXR5KDgwKS9odHRwOi8vaW1hZ2VzLm1pYy5jb20veHRwbjdrY3NzendoaGd5aWJmZHdyZmRpd2oyNnhwbHZreGVqaXB6Mmpycm91bmhoZnZmcWkzMGc3dTFnZGN0bS5naWY.gif
Wasn't that actually supposed to be an attack line?
 

benjipwns

Banned
I thought some anonymous campaign staffer or something said it was supposed to be like "we're tired of hearing about it, cooperate with the investigation Hillary" but it came off wrong.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I'm intrigued; where have you seen this? I can only find him around evens.

I appreciate some time has passed since your post.

You can still get him at 13/10 from Betfair, that's your best now. His odds have shortened like fuuuuck.
 

Zona

Member
I'm really starting to dread seeing political threads in OT at this point.

Thank you to everyone who keeps wading into them, your doing the God-Emperor-Obama's work with your posts. I'd reply with you but I don't really have a gift for expressing myself through the written word. That and I'm to busy restraining myself from punching something or putting my head through my desk.
 
I was wondering if there's a new tent that can be formed with bernie supporters and...Trump people. Hear me out!

1. Stuff's rigged. Both Bernie and Trump agree. Trump most likely does't really give two shits about the Laffer curve and the trickle down Norquist Taliban faction in the GOP. Bottom line is he wont resist an attempt to change it.

2. Universal healthcare: Both agree. Trump goes further and says we should model after Canada's single payer.

3. Education: Trump doesn't have a policy here. He might tow the generic voucher stuff because of GOP's allergy to Common Core. But I can see him being open to government's role here because once again, he doesn't care.

3. Immigration: This is very tricky. Trump's views are well known. But he also wants to cut down on legal skilled immigration. So does Bernie. If you cut through the bullshit, both want the higher paying jobs for Americans first. But still a minefield to navigate for a nativist party.

4. Foreign policy: Bernie and Trump both against Iraq war and if you read between the lines, when Trump says he's going to build the military so powerful, so huge and so great that he will never have to use it, he's being an isolationist. Read between the lines here. He doesn't want to be able to use the military so he's giving himself an out.

Ao lot of unknowns and definitely room for disagreement, and I admit lot of this stuff ride's on Trump's "dont care" views. But The extreme wing of the democrat and republican parties whigging into a new one will act as a pressure valve for both. But if it's going to happen, it has to be MAD: both parties must agree to it in order to reap the windfall or die together. No other way.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
ok cool story but i think its more plausible that clinton and jeb form a third party
 

Gotchaye

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.

First, I think that many third party voters (in competitive elections) are not aware of the consequences. Yes, sure, they're aware that they could potentially cost the major party they're closer to the election, but they have some weird ideas about even that having some good effect in the long run. This is the standard sort of "we have to sit out because they're taking our vote for granted" thing. It doesn't make any sense for plausible models of the electorate and of party decision-making.

But, second, surely it makes sense to talk about a voter's responsibility to vote responsibly when you're talking to that voter. It absolutely makes sense for political parties and their supporters to consider what they could do to convince people who are not intending to vote for them to instead vote for them. I imagine that this is something campaigns spend a lot of time thinking about. If a party is not doing this or is doing it poorly it might be helpful for people to point this out (but obviously they're doing it and the question of whether they're doing it well is very hard to answer and depends on what's important to the party). But it also makes sense to try to convince voters who are doing a poor job of voting their interests to do better. Or even to convince voters that they ought to understand their interests differently than they do. These are pretty normal sorts of political argument to have.

I don't know about "blame", but it seems to me that the party's strategy of not going out of its way to appeal to its fringe is at least defensible as the rational pursuit of the interests of much of the party and even in many cases of the party's fringe. The fringe voter's strategy of not voting for the major party closest to them in a competitive election does not seem nearly as rational in almost every case I've ever been aware of.

Edit: And I want to add that Bernie's going about trying to shift the Democrats in really the best way possible. Imagine if he'd decided to just run third party instead.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I think the best way of trying to shift a party, as shown by the tea party and how Nixon was pushed into the EPA, is by going from the ground up. I don't want the dems to go as crazy as them, but if you're going to build a movement you need to start from the ground level. It's a decent enough blueprint. Get 20 guys like Bernie in Congress, willing to vote lockstep, and it'll do more good than one of him in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.
 

Chichikov

Member
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.
Agreed, and state and municipal is probably more important than the federal legislature.
People's lives are impacted a whole lot more by local government than the federal government (in most cases at least, I'm not saying that shit that happens in DC has no impact on people's lives).
Also, it's actually a doable task, it happens already in many places around the country, and even if your goal is to replace one party with a new one (or even change the system to one that support multiple parties) the way to do it goes through the state level, which is where the two parties establish their iron grip over American politics.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I think the best way of trying to shift a party, as shown by the tea party and how Nixon was pushed into the EPA, is by going from the ground up. I don't want the dems to go as crazy as them, but if you're going to build a movement you need to start from the ground level. It's a decent enough blueprint. Get 20 guys like Bernie in Congress, willing to vote lockstep, and it'll do more good than one of him in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.

That's much harder to do for the left, though. It used to be you had engines of local democracy like unions and mens' working associations and even just close local ties in teh day that you were born, grew up, worked and died in the same place. The right still has these in the form of churches, plus the fact the right are typically older and therefore less mobile than the left. There's no real communal organizations to bind the left together because they've either been killed off (unions) or just become less powerful (local ties) as the way economies function have changed. The left doesn't have the capacity to organize at a local level any more, be it for their own primaries or for things like gubernatorial elections - hence the poor Democratic performance.

Really, the left can only reassert itself through the national paradigm, which incidentally is why running away from Obama was absolute stupidity. Sanders is doing absolutely the right thing to change the way the Democrats work; I don't think you could do it by trying to get 20 Bernie-likes elected, it demands too much co-ordination from social groups that have no real political organization left.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Giving Hillary any opportunity to turn this into a proxy battle between Sanders and Obama is a huge mistake on Sanders' end.

Yes, plus his argument makes no sense given that Iowa and NH had less turnout.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs

Damn son, that's some shit right there. Bernie is not being careful enough with his critiques going into Nevada and South Carolina, dude's criticizing Obama while trying to win over the Obama coalition.

That's much harder to do for the left, though. It used to be you had engines of local democracy like unions and mens' working associations and even just close local ties in teh day that you were born, grew up, worked and died in the same place. The right still has these in the form of churches, plus the fact the right are typically older and therefore less mobile than the left. There's no real communal organizations to bind the left together because they've either been killed off (unions) or just become less powerful (local ties) as the way economies function have changed. The left doesn't have the capacity to organize at a local level any more, be it for their own primaries or for things like gubernatorial elections - hence the poor Democratic performance.

Really, the left can only reassert itself through the national paradigm, which incidentally is why running away from Obama was absolute stupidity. Sanders is doing absolutely the right thing to change the way the Democrats work; I don't think you could do it by trying to get 20 Bernie-likes elected, it demands too much co-ordination from social groups that have no real political organization left.

It's the sort of thing that takes time, without an organizing structure like the tea party had with the Kochs it'll take a decade or so.

We are in total agreement that Dems were stupid fucking morons to run from Obama in the midterms though.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
It's the sort of thing that takes time, without an organizing structure like the tea party had with the Kochs it'll take a decade or so.

I don't think it's even a matter of time. Interstate mobility is very high between the young. Heck, even intrastate migration can be a massive disruption when trying to primary congressional districts. What networks do you use to communicate the information necessary for 20-concerted primary campaigns? How do you get the ground troops when it's difficult to rely on someone who might have to take a job up elsewhere at any point? My personal hope is that the internet will alleviate some of these problems, but ultimately I think the left cannot try and shape the paradigm in the same way the right does - for the left, you basically need to do what Sanders is doing and not the "primary everybody" route.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Actually, the CBCPAC did, not the CBC. The CBC has not endorsed any candidate and does not plan to do so, as Keith Ellison has pointed out. The CBCPAC also chose to endorse without asking anyone in the CBC - Ellison should know, given he is a member.
 

Overlee

Member
CNN is telling me that the Congressional Black Caucus has endorsed Clinton. Is this news? I could swear I already read that before.


Not quite, The Congressional Black Caucus PAC did:

But the Congressional Black Caucus PAC is not the same thing as the Congressional Black Caucus, which is made up of 46 members of Congress. Indeed, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Sanders supporter, made that point on Twitter:

"Cong'l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me."

Ben Branch, the executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus PAC told The Intercept that his group made the decision after a vote from its 20-member board. The board includes 11 lobbyists, seven elected officials, and two officials who work for the PAC. Branch confirmed that the lobbyists were involved in the endorsement, but would not go into detail about the process.

Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the makers of highly addictive opioid OxyContin; Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess, both lobbyists for Navient, the student loan giant that was spun off of Sallie Mae; former Rep. Al Wynn, D-Md., a lobbyist who represents a range of clients, including work last year on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco, the makers of Newport cigarettes; and William A. Kirk, who lobbies for a cigar industry trade group on a range of tobacco regulations.

And a significant percentage of the $7,000 raised this cycle by the CBC PAC was donated by white lobbyists, including Vic Fazio, who represents Philip Morris and served for years as a lobbyist to Corrections Corporation of America, and David Adams, a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.

The caucus itself, while presenting itself as champions of progressive causes, has a mixed legislative record. As some reporters have noted, Wall Street and corporate money has flowed to the CBC, through its PAC and nonprofit arms, while a number of CBC members have taken a leading role working with Republicans to chip away at the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

So white lobbyist support Hillary....
 
We are in total agreement that Dems were stupid fucking morons to run from Obama in the midterms though.


This is probably about one of two things that HillaryGAF and SandersGAF can agree on that doesn't involve Republicans (the other being DWS). You can't win by saying "I'm a slightly inferior Republican". If people want a Republican they've already got one to vote for. Even if you're going to try and steal the center by being more Republican ,than you were, you have to do it in such a way that you still seem like a better choice and that's entirely dependent on you being able to sell the areas where you're different which you can't do while running from them.
 
Not quite, The Congressional Black Caucus PAC did:



So white lobbyist support Hillary....
I fucking knew that was an intercept piece.

Is that outlet anything more than greenwald and his friends ability to blog religiously against any left leaning group or person that doesn't share his revolutionary anti-us zeal?

Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the makers of highly addictive opioid OxyContin; Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess, both lobbyists for Navient, the student loan giant that was spun off of Sallie Mae; former Rep. Al Wynn, D-Md., a lobbyist who represents a range of clients, including work last year on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco, the makers of Newport cigarettes; and William A. Kirk, who lobbies for a cigar industry trade group on a range of tobacco regulations.

And a significant percentage of the $7,000 raised this cycle by the CBC PAC was donated by white lobbyists, including Vic Fazio, who represents Philip Morris and served for years as a lobbyist to Corrections Corporation of America, and David Adams, a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.

The caucus itself, while presenting itself as champions of progressive causes, has a mixed legislative record. As some reporters have noted, Wall Street and corporate money has flowed to the CBC, through its PAC and nonprofit arms, while a number of CBC members have taken a leading role working with Republicans to chip away at the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

This reads like Glenn Beck's chalkboard webs.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
This is probably about one of two things that HillaryGAF and SandersGAF can agree on that doesn't involve Republicans (the other being DWS). You can't win by saying "I'm a slightly inferior Republican". If people want a Republican they've already got one to vote for. Even if you're going to try and steal the center by being more Republican ,than you were, you have to do it in such a way that you still seem like a better choice and that's entirely dependent on you being able to sell the areas where you're different which you can't do while running from them.

Umm, I just want to say that you're attributing that quote to the wrong person. That quote link does not goes to that quote.
 

kirblar

Member
Vox: What the architects of Obama's 2008 campaign think of the Bernie Sanders campaign

(spoiler: they're not fans)

Still, there are ways in which even Obama's process promises were more incremental than Sanders's. Jon Favreau, Obama's speechwriter on the 2008 campaign, points to a line Obama used often on the trail, where he would say, "It's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair." Over email, Favreau unpacked its importance:

To me, this exemplifies the difference between Bernie and Obama. Bernie would never say something like that. He doesn't think insurance companies, or drug companies, or banks, or millionaires get any seats at the table. He doesn't talk about making progress by working with Republicans, or the political establishment, or the business establishment. I guess his plan is to build a mobilized grassroots that simply wrestles power away from those who have it.

It's not just that Obama doesn't think that's feasible, it's that he doesn't think that's the right way to govern in a pluralistic democracy where everyone gets a voice. Obama believes that there's too many Americans who don't have a voice, and too many Americans who don't have opportunity, and that a big reason for that is the power of special interests and big corporations. But he also believes that there's a place for those interests and corporations in our system.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
GAF has been asking about this for months.

Hi, I’m Gilles Paris from Le Monde newspaper, [France]. How do you explain the obstacle that Mr. Sanders is facing among minorities? Is it ideology-based? Is it because he’s not very well known?

MR KONDIK: I do think he is not as well known in – amongst those voters maybe as he is in the Northeast. The other thing too is that think about how long Sanders had to cultivate Iowa and cultivate New Hampshire. He was able to – they’re both small states, they’re both kind of homogenous states, so you don’t have – you can – you don’t need to have different – really have a lot of different messages in states like that because a lot of the voters are very similar. And he was able to just work those states very heavily. As the calendar accelerates, it’s harder to focus that much on individual small states. I think on the – on March 1st there’s, I don’t know, I think there’s 10 to 15 states that vote that day – okay, so 12. And Sanders won’t be able to cultivate those places.

And I also think that – and I think this was actually true in 2008 too – is that Clinton came into both of those elections as the better-known candidate and also she started off with big leads. I think for many voters she was almost like the default candidate. It’s like the other candidates have to – Clinton just has to keep people in her camp, whereas the other candidates have to – have to kind of convince the Clinton voters to come over to them. And I think that’s probably true in this election as well, and that Sanders doesn’t have the obvious appeal to nonwhite voters that Obama did. So I think you might – you could also make the case that – I haven’t looked at the exit polling enough to kind of confirm this, but I just wonder if maybe some of the white voters in some of these small rural states just are more ideological – ideologically driven than black voters in the Democratic Party.

Another thing is that you would expect whites in South Carolina in particular probably to be a little bit more conservative than Iowa and New Hampshire. Again, the whole party is kind of moving to the left, but still, the South is just culturally just a different kind of region than the Northeast or even the Midwest.

So I know that was kind of a meandering question, but – or meandering answer, but I think those are maybe some of the factors going on with Sanders.

http://fpc.state.gov/252361.htm
 
Right now, her campaign style is basically 'disappointed mom'. "Everything you want is never going to happen and is terrible and won't work, but when it all fails you can come back to me". That's awful, just awful. It's negatively inspiring. She'll win the nomination, sure, whatever, but I'm actually genuinely worried about how much support she'll carry with her. Back in October, only 9% of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't vote Clinton. By December, 14%. By January, it was 18%. The last CBS in February had it at 21%. Okay, many of those are exaggerating but Sanders is getting like half the Democratic party at this point. Even if only 10% don't vote that's 5% of the vote gone in the presidential. I don't like Clinton, I want Sanders to win, but given Clinton is going to be the nominee in all likelihood, I do hope she turns her campaign around.

Man, didn't I correct you on this before?

It's inconsequential. Even if 10% of Sanders voters don't vote for Hillary, that's far less than 5%. Even at a 50/50 vote, that's primary voters. Which is less than half of all the votes Hillary will eventually receive in a GE. So it's 10% of 50% of < 50%.

And among that percentage are a bunch of people who never would have voted in the GE anyway because they almost never vote.

And among the ones they will lose, almost none will be in the swing states. This is really a non-factor.




Anyway, Hillary's problems in messaging is pretty simple. Bernie Sanders is running a Bullshit campaign. Just like Trump. They're running the same campaigns. They promise the moon, ignore reality, and moronic voters eat it up. Hillary is trying to run a practical campaign and people don't like hearing about incremental change and strengthening things, they want to be told they will become rich and famous instantly. They want their egos stroked and Bernie is doing that while providing the lube for free!

It's really that simple. Bernie is taking advantage of how frustrated people are with politics and promising them everything and that's enough.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Man, didn't I correct you on this before?

It's inconsequential. Even if 10% of Sanders voters don't vote for Hillary, that's far less than 5%. Even at a 50/50 vote, that's primary voters. Which is less than half of all the votes Hillary will eventually receive in a GE. So it's 10% of 50% of < 50%.

And among that percentage are a bunch of people who never would have voted in the GE anyway because they almost never vote.

And among the ones they will lose, almost none will be in the swing states. This is really a non-factor.

That figure is from registered Democrats supporting Sanders, not primary voters. So, yes, 10% of Sanders voters not voting for Clinton is about 3.8% at this point.

Anyway, Hillary's problems in messaging is pretty simple. Bernie Sanders is running a Bullshit campaign. Just like Trump. They're running the same campaigns. They promise the moon, ignore reality, and moronic voters eat it up. Hillary is trying to run a practical campaign and people don't like hearing about incremental change and strengthening things, they want to be told they will become rich and famous instantly. They want their egos stroked and Bernie is doing that while providing the lube for free!

It's really that simple. Bernie is taking advantage of how frustrated people are with politics and promising them everything and that's enough.

...and rapidly rising above 3.8%.
 

East Lake

Member
Anyway, Hillary's problems in messaging is pretty simple. Bernie Sanders is running a Bullshit campaign. Just like Trump. They're running the same campaigns. They promise the moon, ignore reality, and moronic voters eat it up. Hillary is trying to run a practical campaign and people don't like hearing about incremental change and strengthening things, they want to be told they will become rich and famous instantly. They want their egos stroked and Bernie is doing that while providing the lube for free!

It's really that simple. Bernie is taking advantage of how frustrated people are with politics and promising them everything and that's enough.
We can't win, please elect me!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom