• 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.
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz will not attend the funeral Saturday of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Spokeswoman Alice Stewart said it would be "impossible" for Cruz to make it to the funeral because of his campaign schedule and the Republican primary on Saturday in South Carolina — though he wanted to attend, CNN reported.

Cruz praised Scalia as a "lion of the law" at CNN's town hall, noting his death leaves a "huge void on that court."

Earlier Thursday, Cruz criticized President Obama's decision to skip the funeral.

"We’ve got 11 more months of watching damage to this country from a lawless and faithless president, who is eager to travel to Cuba but unwilling even to show up at the funeral of Justice Scalia," Cruz said in South Carolina.

Obama will pay his respects Friday at the Supreme Court.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269950-cruz-to-miss-scalias-funeral

Cruz seems to be getting dumber as the campaign progresses, this is an obvious fail that Rubio seems far more likely to make than Cruz.
 
Endorsements tend to come with mobilization of local resources and infrastructure, not just the press release. From memory a big part of how an endorsement from Clyburn helps is that he's basically the only Dem in SC with that level of machinery. I don't think next week would allow for that.

Also, they need room for the Sharpton endorsement.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Where is that massive image from, and when did this trend of just posting images of articles become a thing?

Super curious about how people will react to Clyburn endorsing.

From the twitter account of Benji Sarlin (MSNBC). He posted the image, so I just copied it over (I'll quote it to reduce size). Apparently Kasie Hunt did an interview with him recently, and the topic came up.
 
How likely is the emergence of the left wing version of the tea party to persist in Democratic party if Hillary manages to become the nominee? Will the democrats have to live with a certain fraction of ideological extremists and fantasists within their party that will try to primary moderate Democrats, as we have seen happening with Republicans or will the support Sanders has found and created this primary season start to disappear if he were to lose to clinton? I feel like it may be difficult for the Democratic "establishment" to put the genie back in the bottle once a part of the Democratic base has set their mind on implementing Sanders' ideas while regarding everyone who doesn't agree with them as part of the establishment and thus as someone who has to be fought against (in a primary for example).

There could be a Democratic version of the Tea Party, but I doubt they would be as effective. I'll take them seriously if they ever primary a sitting Senator, or win the House with a large majority, or turn out during the midterms.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Warren has been around since the late 90s.

Jokes aside, Democrats are way more likely to believe in the party than Republicans are. There's no socialist trend here.

People think Warren is 50 instead of 70.

I would love to have a Tea Party on the left because it means we'd actually have the left participating in the political process beyond the first six months of the presidential primary season.
 

Kyosaiga

Banned
There could be a Democratic version of the Tea Party, but I doubt they would be as effective. I'll take them seriously if they ever primary a sitting Senator, or win the House with a large majority, or turn out during the midterms.

A democratic Tea Party would be disastrous and I hope it never ever comes close to being a reality.
 
Yeah. If there's an extreme set of left wingers who can actually prove effective, I don't have much problem with it. The issue is that I have a lot of questions about how effective it would be.
 
For PolliGAF. CBS Dem.
2016-democratic-nomination-for-president2-1.jpg


The candidates will soon face off in South Carolina's primary, where in 2008, more than half of the Democratic electorate was African American. Nationally, Clinton has a 30-point advantage among black Democratic primary voters, while white voters are split in their support.

Self-identified Democrats go strongly for Clinton, while independents who say they will vote in a Democratic primary are overwhelmingly in Sanders' camp.

Not sure if posted.
 

aTTckr

Member
Warren has been around since the late 90s.

Jokes aside, Democrats are way more likely to believe in the party than Republicans are. There's no socialist trend here.

Warren at least seems like she accepts that in a two party system who have to at some point work with people who you don't fully agree with and in the end work out some compromise. While she may be pretty close to Sanders ideologically, the way they want to achieve their political goals differ quite a bit. I don't get the "either you are 100% with me, or you are my enemy" vibe from her that I get from Sanders.

In addition didn't Republicans also believe in the party prior to the tea party appearing as a influential wing within the party?
 
How likely is the emergence of the left wing version of the tea party to persist in Democratic party if Hillary manages to become the nominee? Will the democrats have to live with a certain fraction of ideological extremists and fantasists within their party that will try to primary moderate Democrats, as we have seen happening with Republicans or will the support Sanders has found and created this primary season start to disappear if he were to lose to clinton? I feel like it may be difficult for the Democratic "establishment" to put the genie back in the bottle once a part of the Democratic base has set their mind on implementing Sanders' ideas while regarding everyone who doesn't agree with them as part of the establishment and thus as someone who has to be fought against (in a primary for example).

I kind of doubt it just because the left, for whatever reason, tends to have a strongly "top down" view of politics where the main focus is on the presidency, almost to the point of exclusion of all else. For all the Tea Party's mistakes (e.g. nominating unelectable candidates) they do understand the dynamics better and focus more of their attention at the lower levels where they can make a lot of difference.

Honestly I'd love to see a concerted effort on the left to bring about change by focusing more on Congress (particularly midterms), and especially state governments. I wouldn't want it to carry a lot of the baggage the Tea Party does though (overemphasis on ideological purity vs. actual governing, etc.)
 
The left's tea party was organize wall st. That did a lot.
Occupy wall st.

Technically it wasn't. It was mostly a bunch of college kids trying to re-enact one of the protest movements from Arab Spring. But all they did was camp in parks and eat pizza. Oh and block traffic and also harass office workers. No set of demands. No leader of the opposition. No clue about political process. No idea on how to sway congress. No actually putting in the effort to march to Capitol Hill and shout at Congressmen.

Edit: watch that clip from The Newsroom.
 
Overall, nearly nine in 10 Democratic primary voters say they would support Hillary Clinton should she become the Democratic nominee. And while most of those who support Sanders would back Clinton, 21 percent say they would not support Clinton if she is the party's nominee.

Similarly, most Democratic primary voters would support Bernie Sanders if he wins the nomination. Among Clinton's supporters, just 14 percent would not support Sanders.
Disarray.
 
90% of Democrat voters say they're pretty happy with either candidate.

I'm pretty doubtful Trump and Cruz break 70% on that measure.

views-of-socialism.jpg


.... This is a bit of a problem for Sanders if he made to the GE (though that won't happen).
 
100% of those polled probably don't know what socialism is anyway.

On the whole, with the exception of the Fox poll (Quinnipiac was a virtual tie before as well), I don't think the bunch of national polls show much movement. The race is tightened, but more based on their already established strengths. He is still strongest with younger, whiter, male voters. She has mostly retained her advantage with women, particularly older women and minorities.

Also, just as a comparative point, the CBS poll also asks about emails, but in a notably different framing: "Do you think it was appropriate for Hillary Clinton to exclusively use a personal email address and server for work while she was Secretary of State?"
 

HylianTom

Banned
They're insignificant because the primary isn't over. Things change when you see the Republican alternative.

Yup. Usually those numbers close to low teens/single digits. This is a solid starting point, especially considering the task that the GOP has ahead of them in unifying their own party.
 

Jay-Hova

Banned
He actually did in the 80s. Things I'm guessing the right is saving. Could probably just have his quotes and Marx's next to each other's and run that as an add
Okay finally something to make me reconsider my Bernie vote.
Not because I disagree but because that's currently way to risky if real.
I wasn't worried about fake attacks but this is different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom