No, but the vote was so fractured before that no one could reasonably be expected to get 50%. As the field narrows everyone's share is going to get larger.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
No, but the vote was so fractured before that no one could reasonably be expected to get 50%. As the field narrows everyone's share is going to get larger.
User 463088
Banned
I have a question. Ya'll can give me some real talk here. I can take it.
Am I bad liberal/Democrat/progressive if campaign finance issues are not even in my top 5 things I'm remotely concerned with? I mean...I don't like it. I want it changed, but to build an entire campaign around that as the signature issue just seems so.....useless to me. I'm not hating on anyone who thinks this is a major issue, I'm just wondering if I missed the boat somewhere I mean, I want Citizens United gone. I don't think corporations are people....but I understand that I want certain groups to have a voice which means the undesirables must have a voice too.
For me, the issues are social justice (race specifically), queer issues, women's issues, healthcare, education, gun control and smart foreign policy. (Not in that order). I can understand how campaign finance issues could impact all of these things, but....maybe I'm just ignorant.
Feel free to tell me I am.
Am I bad liberal/Democrat/progressive if campaign finance issues are not even in my top 5 things I'm remotely concerned with? I mean...I don't like it. I want it changed, but to build an entire campaign around that as the signature issue just seems so.....useless to me. I'm not hating on anyone who thinks this is a major issue, I'm just wondering if I missed the boat somewhere I mean, I want Citizens United gone. I don't think corporations are people....but I understand that I want certain groups to have a voice which means the undesirables must have a voice too.
For me, the issues are social justice (race specifically), queer issues, women's issues, healthcare, education, gun control and smart foreign policy. (Not in that order). I can understand how campaign finance issues could impact all of these things, but....maybe I'm just ignorant.
Feel free to tell me I am.
Trump has no weak regions, he is just as strong in the South as he is in New England. Unless Iowa counts as a region.
He'll be weak in areas with lots of religious people. Like Iowa.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Have there been other polls with him around 50%?
Checked Huffpo and the last Emerson poll of MA had him at 48% lol. Urge to diablos falling...
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-massachusetts-republican-presidential-primary
User 463088
Banned
He'll be weak in areas with lots of religious people. Like Iowa.
Except SC was more evangelical than Iowa, and he won evangelicals in it.
He'll be weak in areas with lots of religious people. Like Iowa.
South Carolina is as religious as any state. And he actually won Evangelicals by double digits over Cruz.
I have a question. Ya'll can give me some real talk here. I can take it.
Am I bad liberal/Democrat/progressive if campaign finance issues are not even in my top 5 things I'm remotely concerned with? I mean...I don't like it. I want it changed, but to build an entire campaign around that as the signature issue just seems so.....useless to me. I'm not hating on anyone who thinks this is a major issue, I'm just wondering if I missed the boat somewhere I mean, I want Citizens United gone. I don't think corporations are people....but I understand that I want certain groups to have a voice which means the undesirables must have a voice too.
For me, the issues are social justice (race specifically), queer issues, women's issues, healthcare, education, gun control and smart foreign policy. (Not in that order). I can understand how campaign finance issues could impact all of these things, but....maybe I'm just ignorant.
Feel free to tell me I am.
Not really no. Considering the only thing that can be done about it are liberal court picks I don't really disagree. If there were a legislative solution I'd disagree, but we're stuck without one so there's no need to say anything other than you'll appoint the right justices.
EDIT: Even then, I can't exactly fault someone who feels that way. There's a lot of hugely important issues that also need attention.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I have a question. Ya'll can give me some real talk here. I can take it.
Am I bad liberal/Democrat/progressive if campaign finance issues are not even in my top 5 things I'm remotely concerned with? I mean...I don't like it. I want it changed, but to build an entire campaign around that as the signature issue just seems so.....useless to me. I'm not hating on anyone who thinks this is a major issue, I'm just wondering if I missed the boat somewhere I mean, I want Citizens United gone. I don't think corporations are people....but I understand that I want certain groups to have a voice which means the undesirables must have a voice too.
For me, the issues are social justice (race specifically), queer issues, women's issues, healthcare, education, gun control and smart foreign policy. (Not in that order). I can understand how campaign finance issues could impact all of these things, but....maybe I'm just ignorant.
Feel free to tell me I am.
Campaign finance is an issue that Dems should focus on just because it's a winning issue for them. Voters have extreme (and possibly justified) paranoia over rich people buying elections so it's a good issue to keep bringing up against crooks like Walker or Rubio.
My top five are: Immigration, foreign policy, race, women's issues, queer issues/climate change (I know that's six...).
I just can't be that afraid of "money in politics" after watching Jeb Bush implode for 9 months.
Roland_Gunner
Member
nate says that MA poll for Bernie is terrible for him.
Well yeah, if Sanders can't win MA he probably doesn't get to 10 states.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Wonder if Hillary might get a small bounce in other states from her Nevada win and what will certainly be a landslide in SC.New Polls from MA
New #Massachusetts Poll
#GOP
@realDonaldTrump- 50%
@marcorubio- 16%
@JohnKasich- 13%
@tedcruz- 10%
@RealBenCarson- 2%
New #Massachusetts Poll
#Democrats
@BernieSanders- 46%
@HillaryClinton- 46%
Bernie only winning Vermont on Super Tuesday would be disastrous for him. I'm not convinced he's got CO and MN on lock, which some people seem to just be giving to him.
Campaign finance is an issue that Dems should focus on just because it's a winning issue for them. Voters have extreme (and possibly justified) paranoia over rich people buying elections so it's a good issue to keep bringing up against crooks like Walker or Rubio.
My top five are: Immigration, foreign policy, race, women's issues, queer issues/climate change (I know that's six...).
I just can't be that afraid of "money in politics" after watching Jeb Bush implode for 9 months.
It scares me at the most local levels, but so far everyone is too damn stupid to realize that's where it would have the most effect.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yup. Just look at NC, Art Pope buys every local election he can.It scares me at the most local levels, but so far everyone is too damn stupid to realize that's where it would have the most effect.
Basileus777
Member
Nate Silver
I wish I could say I was surprised by NJ being on top, but I'm really not. There are a lot of racists (especially among older people) in this state unhappy with how non-white NJ is becoming.FWIW, Trump's best states according to Morning Consult polling:
New Jersey 51%
Massachusetts 48%
Nevada 48%
Mississippi 47%
(Nat'l Avg: 36%)
Wonder if Hillary might get a small bounce in other states from her Nevada win and what will certainly be a landslide in SC.
Bernie only winning Vermont on Super Tuesday would be disastrous for him. I'm not convinced he's got CO and MN on lock, which some people seem to just be giving to him.
Its very possible. You know Mook's spreading the NV staff to those caucuses in CO, MN, KS, NE & ME. Expect them to move after the 5th to WA, HI etc. If she runs the table next week its over.
I have a question. Ya'll can give me some real talk here. I can take it.
Am I bad liberal/Democrat/progressive if campaign finance issues are not even in my top 5 things I'm remotely concerned with? I mean...I don't like it. I want it changed, but to build an entire campaign around that as the signature issue just seems so.....useless to me. I'm not hating on anyone who thinks this is a major issue, I'm just wondering if I missed the boat somewhere I mean, I want Citizens United gone. I don't think corporations are people....but I understand that I want certain groups to have a voice which means the undesirables must have a voice too.
For me, the issues are social justice (race specifically), queer issues, women's issues, healthcare, education, gun control and smart foreign policy. (Not in that order). I can understand how campaign finance issues could impact all of these things, but....maybe I'm just ignorant.
Feel free to tell me I am.
The thing about campaign finance issues is that it's a systemic flaw in our democracy that makes adopting better policy difficult on a huge number of issues. It seems especially weird to me that you would have that view when you consider gun control to be one of the issues that you value highly. The gun lobby is the most powerful one in Washington. Even the most basic, common sense gun control will not be passed without campaign finance reform.
The thing about campaign finance issues is that it's a systemic flaw in our democracy that makes adopting better policy difficult on a huge number of issues. It seems especially weird to me that you would have that view when you consider gun control to be one of the issues that you value highly. The gun lobby is the most powerful one in Washington. Even the most basic, common sense gun control will not be passed without campaign finance reform.
It'll take way more than fixing Citizens United to get that done. A Dem majority in both houses of Congress is all that's going to get gun reform done and even then it may not be enough. Also it would take a liberal court, the old court killed local gun laws given the chance. We're going to need for them to reverse the DC handgun case before anything else can happen.
I have a question. Ya'll can give me some real talk here. I can take it.
Am I bad liberal/Democrat/progressive if campaign finance issues are not even in my top 5 things I'm remotely concerned with? I mean...I don't like it. I want it changed, but to build an entire campaign around that as the signature issue just seems so.....useless to me. I'm not hating on anyone who thinks this is a major issue, I'm just wondering if I missed the boat somewhere I mean, I want Citizens United gone. I don't think corporations are people....but I understand that I want certain groups to have a voice which means the undesirables must have a voice too.
For me, the issues are social justice (race specifically), queer issues, women's issues, healthcare, education, gun control and smart foreign policy. (Not in that order). I can understand how campaign finance issues could impact all of these things, but....maybe I'm just ignorant.
Feel free to tell me I am.
You ain't getting any gun control passed without changing money in politics. Why is to so hard to get even small gun control regulations passed? A large part of it is the fear of the NRA dumping tons of money into your primary opponent who will pledge to not pass any gun regulation at all. If you want any sort of major change in gun control laws, getting money out of politics is a requirement.
WTA states on the 15th are Florida and Ohio. Which is why I wouldn't be so quick to call the nomination for Trump until we see how those two vote. If Trump can take one or both of them, it's game over.
Crap, I forgot about this.
I am semi-siding with Y2Kev now, I think Trump might continue to drop allowing for Rubio to make a last minute comeback, especially as the herd continues to thin.
btw it's very clear to me now that Haley sold her soul for a VP spot. If Rubio gets that nomination she's going to be on the ticket.
I've never, ever thought Trump had a shot in the general but him getting 50% in MA of all places could cause some serious diablosing.
Yeah, I hate the "rooting for Trump" narrative you see on so many lefty sites. Donald Trump has tapped into a certain strain of white American dissatisfaction, and this makes him a more dangerous candidate than Cruz or even Rubio. A Clinton victory against Trump would be incredibly hard-fought.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The thing about campaign finance issues is that it's a systemic flaw in our democracy that makes adopting better policy difficult on a huge number of issues. It seems especially weird to me that you would have that view when you consider gun control to be one of the issues that you value highly. The gun lobby is the most powerful one in Washington. Even the most basic, common sense gun control will not be passed without campaign finance reform.
Citizens united is not the problem there or even campaign finance. The kind of things that drive support to interests groups run far further than that. The kind of fixes require consitutional amendments and fundamental changes in our system of government and sanders doesn't even seem to be aware of that,
Sanders seems to think people agree with him but are blinded by money which is all kinds of wrong and a fundamental reason why even though I agree with many policy proposals of him I can't cosign his revolution.
I really think sanders doesn't fully understand how our government is designed. The talk of revolution seem to confirm this. This is similar to cruz's talk. The system doesn't allow their ideas. And if your not going to attack the system why pretend your are fighting for a revolution?
Crap, I forgot about this.
I am semi-siding with Y2Kev now, I think Trump might continue to drop allowing for Rubio to make a last minute comeback,
And really when you look past Super Tuesday there seems to be plenty of delegate-rich states where Rubio could be poised for a win.
I disagree, but only because I see Trump's entire strategy as more of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more he wins, the more he can talk about how he'll keep winning and so the more he wins in the future. He's like Whitney's Miltank in Gold and Silver, once the rollout spam starts nothing stops that train.
shinra-bansho
Member
The gun lobby already seemed incredibly powerful prior to money = speech.
The gun lobby already seemed incredibly powerful prior to money = speech.
It was and part of the reason was the tilt of the court. When DC managed to ban handguns they took it to the Supremes where the ban was promptly killed 5-4. A tilt toward the liberal side means that bans like that can actually survive a court challenge and we can start moving forward with real reform, albeit slowly.
The gun lobby already seemed incredibly powerful prior to money = speech.
Well yes, and campaign finance reform was already a highly contested issue. It was finally starting to look like we might get somewhere with it, until CU killed the progress.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The gun lobby already seemed incredibly powerful prior to money = speech.
I think citizens united needs to be overturned but can people really point to any changes in politics pre and post its decision? The only change I see is its far easier to rip off people donating as a consultant. I've not seen a shift in politics.
In fact the country's moved left since the decision! Taxes have gone up, health care as been expanded, regulations expanded, etc.
and with TRUMP, sanders and Jeb! (RIP) we're seeing money doesn't get support. It seems like misprioritization to think that's what's holding back liberal policies
Yeah, I hate the "rooting for Trump" narrative you see on so many lefty sites. Donald Trump has tapped into a certain strain of white American dissatisfaction, and this makes him a more dangerous candidate than Cruz or even Rubio. A Clinton victory against Trump would be incredibly hard-fought.
I still feel confident that whatever gains Trump makes among whites will be offset by losses with Hispanics.
I do believe that Ted Cruz would be easier to beat, but I don't think Cruz really has much of a shot; there's almost no state where he'll be favored after Super Tuesday.
nate says that MA poll for Bernie is terrible for him.
It's not what I wanted to see, but definitely gives me hope for a Hillary win.
shinra-bansho
Member
Actually, I guess it's sort of related but what are people's views on the likes of Soros and Saban and Spielberg donating millions to Democrats, setting aside they're donating to Hillary right now?
Would they prefer they didn't?
Would they prefer they didn't?
Money is more effective on down ticket races. We need that money.Actually, I guess it's sort of related but what are people's views on the likes of Soros and Saban and Spielberg donating millions to Democrats, setting aside they're donating to Hillary right now?
Would they prefer they didn't?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Actually, I guess it's sort of related but what are people's views on the likes of Soros and Saban and Spielberg donating millions to Democrats, setting aside they're donating to Hillary right now?
Would they prefer they didn't?
Why would I prefer that? They're not opposed to the policies I want (besides saben's views on Israel)
Actually, I guess it's sort of related but what are people's views on the likes of Soros and Saban and Spielberg donating millions to Democrats, setting aside they're donating to Hillary right now?
Would they prefer they didn't?
I mean, we don't have any choice but to play by the rules as they are currently written. Nobly refusing donations and then getting buried by your opponent's ads doesn't get you anywhere.
Why would I prefer that? They're not opposed to the policies I want (besides saben's views on Israel)
and power rangers
He says Trump does well in states with "racial resentment." I don't think we can quantify that. Like, which states would those be? The only pattern I see in the grab bag of states they gave him is East vs West.The article explains that Trump is unique in recent political history in that his strength is concentrated in both the South and the Northeast. If you look at the cross tabs on the states that have voted already, he does best among moderates and "slightly conservatives" while Ted Cruz mops up the ultra conservatives.
nate says that MA poll for Bernie is terrible for him.
Nate reckons Bernie needs to win Mass in double digits to remain competitive so I'm not surprised.
PPP also had Bernie at +7 in Mass last week so it might also be his New Hampshire momentum is evaporating.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
He says Trump does well in states with "racial resentment." I don't think we can quantify that. Like, which states would those be? The only pattern I see in the grab bag of states they gave him is East vs West.
States that have a lot of racist Google searches and starts where "racial resentment" was measured to be highest in the past.
shinra-bansho
Member
It seemed like a sentiment that was resonating. It's part of one candidate's major appeal. I guess two if you count Trump on the opposite side.
He says Trump does well in states with "racial resentment." I don't think we can quantify that. Like, which states would those be? The only pattern I see in the grab bag of states they gave him is East vs West.
It's actually pretty simple; he's strong everywhere but the West Coast and the Midwest.
He says Trump does well in states with "racial resentment." I don't think we can quantify that. Like, which states would those be? The only pattern I see in the grab bag of states they gave him is East vs West.
Well, it would explain states like Iowa, where there are so few minorities that it's probably hard to resent them.
You'd assume that Trump would do better in border states, for example, since that's where people are worried about the mexicans he's promising to deport.
gutter_trash
Banned
btw last FL poll in January was
Trump 41
Cruz 22
Rubio 18
Bush 4
those 4 for Jeb automatically translate from one neocon to the other = Rubio.
Placing Rubio solidly over Cruz for 2nd in FL.
Cruz has has no room to grow, Bibling Thumping Lunatics have a ceiling.
Rubio has the neocons and the establishment party lock-steppers
Trump = Chaos Control. The rules do not apply
I still feel confident that whatever gains Trump makes among whites will be offset by losses with Hispanics.
I do believe that Ted Cruz would be easier to beat, but I don't think Cruz really has much of a shot; there's almost no state where he'll be favored after Super Tuesday.
Clinton would probably beat Trump, but it's going to be a hard fight. Qualities like perceived honesty and "being an outsider" unfortunately matter more than ideology to most voters, which is why a lot of independents will favor Trump. Because Trump isn't very far-right outside of immigration, I'm sure we'll see some white Democrats switching sides because they find Clinton to be insincere.
Ironically, all of the legitimate criticisms of Clinton (corporatism, insincerity, ideological uncertainty) are even more applicable to Trump.
gutter_trash
Banned
Whoops, accidentally posted in the primary thread so cross posting here:
So PoliGAF, does my queen need my vote in Texas or can/should I vote for Trump in the GOP primary.
Order?
or
Chaos?
Basileus777
Member
Whoops, accidentally posted in the primary thread so cross posting here:
So PoliGAF, does my queen need my vote in Texas or can/should I vote for Trump in the GOP primary.
Bernie has no chance in the Texas primary. You're safe to vote in the GOP one.
Hillary won a long time ago. Trump needs your help!Whoops, accidentally posted in the primary thread so cross posting here:
So PoliGAF, does my queen need my vote in Texas or can/should I vote for Trump in the GOP primary.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Yeah, I hate the "rooting for Trump" narrative you see on so many lefty sites. Donald Trump has tapped into a certain strain of white American dissatisfaction, and this makes him a more dangerous candidate than Cruz or even Rubio. A Clinton victory against Trump would be incredibly hard-fought.
Eh, its called diablosing because its a non-rational response. I just under-estimated the latent racial resentment of white northeasterners. Trump still has an extremely narrow path to beating Clinton. Since Trump's basically punting any substantial support from minorities he has to win a huge share of the white vote. Basically he has to keep attracting his normally low-voting working class base, offer enough goodies to keep upper-class whites from jumping to Clinton, and not go so overboard that he freaks out minorities and causes them to turn out at 2012 levels.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.