• 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.
R

RustyNails

Member
Las7 said:
Right Rubio will get all the Cruz/Trump/Carson crazies to vote for him in a GE. Especially if you consider the process of him getting the nomination and the type of contention between him and Trump/Cruz in such a situation. It be hilarious. Trump might even run Independent in such a situation.
Click to expand...
Babby's first election? Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. Sanders will get nuked out of orbit by GOP.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
Sea Manky said:
Right. The primaries, the marching, all that is where we try to get the issues we want on the ballot. But at the end of the process, what's left is a single simple choice. One of two platforms will be enacted. And if your issue isn't on either, then it's not part of the choice, and you're walking away from the choices that are actually there for nothing.
Click to expand...

that was a really stealthy way to say that if its down to hillary vs whoever you ought to be voting hillary u sumbitch.
 
T

Trurl

Banned
Cheebo said:
Yep. It's bizarre seeing how many people here are still in denial. The Republican primary is OVER. The writing is on the wall. It's Rubio.
Click to expand...
I think that Trump winning in New Hampshire could be seen as a comeback and give him a boost. At any rate, surprises are common and saying that Rubio winning is a foregone conclusion is silly.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Retromelon said:
that was a really stealthy way to say that if its down to hillary vs whoever you ought to be voting hillary u sumbitch.
Click to expand...

Circumstances don't change the reality. There's a reason why everyone talks about voting the lesser of two evils. It's always true. Pick your lesser evil, coz otherwise the greater evil will have a better chance.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Expect a Trump and Sanders win but surprises can happen

*Hillary has been mired in the 30's and 40's since June in NH. One June poll had her 56-24.
Click to expand...

I can see Trump slipping due to the weakness in his operation but Sanders has this in the bag. Clinton winning would be one of the most improbable results in the primary era. At this point losing by less than 10 would be a win.
 
T

Trurl

Banned
I'm not sure about on the presidential level, but I would vote for a Democrat that I hate over a Republican that I like for Congress. Of course I would vote for Hillary or Bernie over anyone the GOP could nominate.
 
P

Pyroclastic

Banned
did someone make any highlights of the townhall last night? someone normally has done for the debates and townhalls, this was the first one I missed live.

thank you in advance.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Hillary should send Bill Clinton to Flint. Bill can give a speech there that gets black people fired up more about Clinton campaign.

CGI should make a donation there.
 
N

noshten

Member
RustyNails said:
Babby's first election? Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. Sanders will get nuked out of orbit by GOP.
Click to expand...

Sanders beats anyone from the GOP by such a margin it would take them decades to actually process the ass kicking. Republicans might fall in line but sadly for them their only chance to win is low voter turnout. Rubio guarantees low voter turnout on their side - the same sort of voter turnout Mitt Romney had, Trump actually has a chance to lead to a higher voter turnout for Republicans but they'd still lose but it would be closer.

NeoXChaos said:
Hillary 82/8 with blacks

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...-tightens-nationally-clinton-still-solid.html
Click to expand...

Hispanics being 48/36 pretty damn good for Bernie - especially in PPP polling
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Cheebo said:
The media always narrative decides who actually won, that determines public perception. Media narrative is Rubio did fantastic and Trump failed. That's just how it is.
Click to expand...

Just like they did with Santorum in 2012!

Oh, wait...
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Cheebo said:
The media pretty much ignored Santorums win in Iowa in 2012
Click to expand...

A simple 5-second Google search just proved you completely wrong. I see headline articles from CNN, Fox News, Politico, Huffington Post, et al. I also remember Fox News and conservative radio the week after.
 
T

thefro

Member
Las7 said:
Sanders beats anyone from the GOP by such a margin it would take them decades to actually process the ass kicking. Republicans might fall in line but sadly for them their only chance to win is low voter turnout. Rubio guarantees low voter turnout on their side - the same sort of voter turnout Mitt Romney had, Trump actually has a chance to lead to a higher voter turnout for Republicans but they'd still lose but it would be closer.
Click to expand...

I think Sanders is still underestimated by a lot of people. There's a good reason he's had the success politically he has in Vermont. It takes a lot to do that as an independent.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
People are actually arguing that Sanders could win a general election?

LOLOLOLOLOL

Rubio would destroy that guy. Like 150-200 electoral vote destroy.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
That PPP poll is....interesting.

Bernie's favorability among people who are going to vote for him is 88/6/5. So, 11% of people who are voting for him are either unfavorable towards him or don't have an opinion on him? (Hillary's at 97/0/3) That's weird. Bernie also leads among those who consider themselves very conservative, which is just weird as all hell.

The good news for Sanders is that Hillary is only leading among Hispanics by 12 points. That's an easier nut to crack than his abysmal AA numbers. I mean, he is demographically screwed. The AA vote is also firmer than whites. Everything in the south is going to be just awful for him.

The biggest issue for Bernie, though, is looking at his unfavorables among those over 45.

Among 46-60 year olds, Hillary is at 70/20/9. Bernie is 58/30/11. Among those 65 and older, 74/17/8 and Bernie's at 59/24/18. The oldest group is going to be harder for him to break through because SOCIALISM.

So, Bernie's going to have to do this without AA support and with net favorables well below Hillary among the age brackets that make up about 60% of the electorate.

Black Republican said:
50% not sure under Sanders favorables is interesting
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_20416.pdf

i do think Sanders can improve his base a little in the south, enough to eclipse Clinton? Very hard but not impossible
Click to expand...

Right, but favorables don't automatically translate to support. I have a mostly favorable view of him, but wouldn't support him. AA support is firmer, which is good for Hillary.
 
P

PBY

Banned
You know how we always talk about a large bloc of this country voting against their interests, and why thats irrational?

I realized today after reading Rubio's zero capital gains tax - that would be in my best interest to vote for.

In fact, the entire Republican platform benefits me greatly financially - and yet I'm voting against my own interests.

Is this rational? Is this good? Should everyone just vote in their best interests, and let the country work it out, almost in the way our justice system works?
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
PBY said:
You know how we always talk about a large bloc of this country voting against their interests, and why thats irrational?

I realized today after reading Rubio's zero capital gains tax - that would be in my best interest to vote for.

In fact, the entire Republican platform benefits me greatly financially - and yet I'm voting against my own interests.

Is this rational? Is this good? Should everyone just vote in their best interests, and let the country work it out, almost in the way our justice system works?
Click to expand...

If everybody in the country voted in their best financial interests, democrats would have control of most of the government positions in this country.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Plinko said:
If everybody in the country voted in their best financial interests, democrats would have control of most of the government positions in this country.
Click to expand...

I know this. Which is why I wonder if it is irrational for me to vote against my interests? Not saying that financial considerations are my #1 priority, but my point stands.
 
S

shem935

Banned
PBY said:
I know this. Which is why I wonder if it is irrational for me to vote against my interests? Not saying that financial considerations are my #1 priority, but my point stands.
Click to expand...

I would say yeah you would be voting against your own interests but it only would be irrational if that tax cut would be your lifeline to continue existing and not just a bonus on top. However displaying empathy by thinking of others needs if yours are already taken care of is hardly irrational I think. Don't know. Hard to judge.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
adam387 said:
That PPP poll is....interesting.

Bernie's favorability among people who are going to vote for him is 88/6/5. So, 11% of people who are voting for him are either unfavorable towards him or don't have an opinion on him? (Hillary's at 97/0/3) That's weird. Bernie also leads among those who consider themselves very conservative, which is just weird as all hell.

The good news for Sanders is that Hillary is only leading among Hispanics by 12 points. That's an easier nut to crack than his abysmal AA numbers. I mean, he is demographically screwed. The AA vote is also firmer than whites. Everything in the south is going to be just awful for him.

The biggest issue for Bernie, though, is looking at his unfavorables among those over 45.

Among 46-60 year olds, Hillary is at 70/20/9. Bernie is 58/30/11. Among those 65 and older, 74/17/8 and Bernie's at 59/24/18. The oldest group is going to be harder for him to break through because SOCIALISM.

So, Bernie's going to have to do this without AA support and with net favorables well below Hillary among the age brackets that make up about 60% of the electorate.



Right, but favorables don't automatically translate to support. I have a mostly favorable view of him, but wouldn't support him. AA support is firmer, which is good for Hillary.
Click to expand...

I don't think he has the coalition to ink at anything major he will need older whites and blacks in most of the southern states and some of the midwestern states.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
PBY said:
I know this. Which is why I wonder if it is irrational for me to vote against my interests? Not saying that financial considerations are my #1 priority, but my point stands.
Click to expand...
It's a little irrational.

But the thing is, are you voting against your best interests? Remember, it's not possible to vote for just part of a candidate's platform. Rubio (or anybody else) might have individual planks that work in your favor, but others that work against. It's important to remember that ultimately all of this boils down to quality of life. Would the benefit to your life from Republican financial policy outweigh everything else they'd do?

Also worth noting that despite the short term gains we're far too far to the right from a policy perspective for a further shift to be anything but detrimental, long term.
 
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Zona said:
You can be both. Ideologically probably only disastermouse is as or further left then me. My voting habits however are much more... pragmatic.
Click to expand...
I think you can be a moderate or liberal on certain issues. Hillary I would describe as a liberal overall. She's also a pragmatist.
 
P

PBY

Banned
shem935 said:
I would say yeah you would be voting against your own interests but it only would be irrational if that tax cut would be your lifeline to continue existing and not just a bonus on top. However displaying empathy by thinking of others needs if yours are already taken care of is hardly irrational I think. Don't know. Hard to judge.
Click to expand...

I think people think of these tax cuts/benefits in absolutes. Some of the "go after wall street speculation" stuff would put people in my line of business (possibly even myself) out of work full stop, not simply reduce earning power/income a touch.

Now - is it worse for a person with education/money to go out of business than someone struggling with poverty or on the lower middle class scale? Of course not.

Still not sure what the answer to this is.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
PBY said:
You know how we always talk about a large bloc of this country voting against their interests, and why thats irrational?

I realized today after reading Rubio's zero capital gains tax - that would be in my best interest to vote for.
Click to expand...

I think the best argument against this view point is that while you may benefit in the short-term, eventually the damage done to country would be so negative that unless you can afford to emigrate to Sweden or something, everyone would be hurt in the end. The tax cuts the Rubio is talking about would dwarf Bushes and would cause the national debt to explode.
 
S

shem935

Banned
PBY said:
I think people think of these tax cuts/benefits in absolutes. Some of the "go after wall street speculation" stuff would put people in my line of business (possibly even myself) full stop, not simply reduce earning power/income a touch.

Now - is it worse for a person with education/money to go out of business than someone struggling with poverty or on the lower middle class scale? Of course.

Still not sure what the answer to this is.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Which candidates wouldn't simply be neutral to your current position? I would say not voting for a tax cut for yourself isn't voting irrationally but voting for a candidate who had such a position you described might be.
 
P

PBY

Banned
shem935 said:
Interesting. Which candidates wouldn't simply be neutral to your current position? I would say not voting for a tax cut for yourself isn't voting irrationally but voting for a candidate who had such a position you described might be.
Click to expand...

Hillary might be neutral - but to speak generally, some of the "closing tax loopholes" she has proposed, would SIGNIFICANTLY dampen hedge fund investments, which would not be the best for me.

Probably Jeb would be the most neutral towards my job.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
A Human Becoming said:
I think you can be a moderate or liberal on certain issues. Hillary I would describe as a liberal overall. She's also a pragmatist.
Click to expand...

I think Hillary'[s like me. We're both liberals, but we're also extremely pragmatic. If I could waive a magic wand, I'm guessing my country would look a lot like what Bernie and Hillary both want. I just have been beaten down enough by the realities on the ground that I'm more realistic on what we can actually achieve.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
PBY said:
You know how we always talk about a large bloc of this country voting against their interests, and why thats irrational?

I realized today after reading Rubio's zero capital gains tax - that would be in my best interest to vote for.

In fact, the entire Republican platform benefits me greatly financially - and yet I'm voting against my own interests.

Is this rational? Is this good? Should everyone just vote in their best interests, and let the country work it out, almost in the way our justice system works?
Click to expand...

It's social issues vs. economic issues.

The Dixiecrats "vote against their own interests" economically, but they hate black people so much that they're really voting for their interests overall. Rich people who vote against Republicans, meanwhile, care more about the social impact than the economic impact.

People vote for their own interests, those just don't happen to be entirely economical since there's more to people's desires in life than money (and some of those desires are terrible!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
115
12K
LavitzSlambert replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
54K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
62K
DGrayson replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2022 Edition
3 4 5 6 7
333
78K
zephiross replied
Top Bottom