• 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.

noshten

Member
Wow a speaking tour, she's so corrupt my god.

First of all I'm just saying that if she didn't want to get attacked on her Wall Street and Corporate ties she could have concentrated on her run as opposed to doing a speaking tour.
I also didn't bring up corruption you did - I've outlined a lack a foresight by a person that has been running for president on two separate occasions. Whether she is corrupt or not has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The speeches don't exactly help her campaign or her issue with trust and honesty.
 
I don't begrudge Bernie going down swinging. He's not going to change the final GE outcome calling Hillary what the left wing of the Democratic party has basically called her and her husband for years, anyway.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Cb2M7STUMAA977Z.png


you mean Hillary and those are not adjectives.
 
If the nominee is Trump I expect him to adopt some of Sanders' smears vis a vis Wall Street and donations. Mix it up with some attacks on the "rapist" Bill Clinton and her "murder" of Americans in Benghazi. He'll probably also call her a "criminal" for the email thing.

It'll be a show.

Almost definitely, unless the guy who finishes February with 3 wins out of 4 contests is the Republican nominee given that he's more able than the rest of the GOP field combined to adapt those attack lines from Sanders.

Are you guys seriously worried about Trump, the guy who has pissed off every voting bloc outside of the dark racist heart of the Republican party? If Hillary can't beat him she has waaaaay more problems than Bernie pointing out her Wall Street cash
 
I'm a Clinton supporter, but it's way to early to call for Bernie to drop out. He's a long shot, but he's not out of it.


Plus he'll want to keep the campaign going a bit longer in case something nasty comes of Clinton's closet.
 

JABEE

Member
I don't care about gun control, but I'm talking about how money in politics does impact policy decisions.

The general idea is that companies would not lobby politicians and devote resources if there causes were not being served.

You can't say I'll take large amounts of money from pharmaceutical, communications, and finance companies while serving a duty that often involves keeping them in check if the public's interests are diminished.

It's an inherent conflict of interest of taking money in large blocks. I'm not saying Sanders is clear of this, but I welcome people to talk about it.

I truly believe this is a major reason why there is a large division in wages in this country. It would be laughable to just toss that out as some kind of impolite topic to bring up.

Ny question would be if people don't believe that the economy as a whole has been damaged by these types of contributions and the impact that these contributions have on policy.

If you answer, the question "no," I don't believe I agree, but if you answer the question "yes" and believe it is uncouth or impolite, then I wonder what these campaigns should be about.

I firmly believe this is THE major issue of why this country had as sharp of an economic crash as it did in 2008. Obama was able to bring the country back from death, but if you continue to do the same stupid things you did before without open and public examination, then I think everyone is just banging their heads against the wall.

Also, if you have someone like Bill Clinton actively campaigning for you, then I believe you should have to answer for his history of deregulation and Hillary's history of chumminess with the banks and huge corporations like Wal-Mart.
 

dramatis

Member
I feel like PoliGAF is at risk of sounding like Bernie Sanders because the same things get repeated over and over again.



It's somewhat amusing that Scalia's death seems to have much less effect on the races than I thought it would. I guess it depends on what happens in the senate.

Hope McCaskill gets better, it seems like she caught it early at least.
 

loki 16

Member
Damn, some folks here really don't like Sanders or really like Clinton. Bernie needs to keep hammering his leftist views for as long as he can.
 

Cerium

Member
Are you guys seriously worried about Trump, the guy who has pissed off every voting bloc outside of the dark racist heart of the Republican party? If Hillary can't beat him she has waaaaay more problems than Bernie pointing out her Wall Street cash

The time for laughing off Trump is long past. He's immune to the usual laws of political gravity and he isn't bound by orthodoxy or decorum.
 

OmniOne

Member
Even though I'm aware doing so would alienate Bernie voters we'd need to back Hillary, and it's unnecessary since the delegate math has this just about over, but I think Bernie needs to be attacked from the Socialist angle.

If he can't withstand such attacks in a democratic primary, there is no damn way he would in a GE against republicans.

I might be the only one that feels this way.
 
Are you guys seriously worried about Trump, the guy who has pissed off every voting bloc outside of the dark racist heart of the Republican party? If Hillary can't beat him she has waaaaay more problems than Bernie pointing out her Wall Street cash

I don't even know how people expect him to survive one-on-one debates with Clinton.
 
Even though I'm aware doing so would alienate Bernie voters we'd need to back Hillary, and it's unnecessary since the delegate math has this just about over, but I think Bernie needs to be attacked from the Socialist angle.

If he can't withstand such attacks in a democratic primary, there is no damn way he would in a GE against republicans.

I might be the only one that feels this way.
There's no point anymore. And dems voting in the primaries aren't going to receive socialism the same way moderates in a general would.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I feel like PoliGAF is at risk of sounding like Bernie Sanders because the same things get repeated over and over again.



It's somewhat amusing that Scalia's death seems to have much less effect on the races than I thought it would. I guess it depends on what happens in the senate.

Hope McCaskill gets better, it seems like she caught it early at least.

Good observation. It had that initial blip, and that was it.
 
I don't even know how people expect him to survive one-on-one debates with Clinton.

People that like Trump aren't looking for substantive answers and I don't think most people watch the debates for much more than optics. His side is looking for bombast and confidence. I'm not sure why people think he'll perform poorly. Rubio AND Cruz would both do worse against Hillary IMO.
 
I seriously can't believe that you guys are complaining because Bernie is actually going to do his best to win the nomination instead of throwing in the towel. Don't like that he's going to drag this out? TOUGH TITTIES.

Hillary's not going to get a coronation. Get over it.

I seriously can only take this Hillary echo chamber in doses. It's like alt-reddit up in this bitch.

I think he should drag it out. He is well within his right to fight her as hard as he can to win the nomination.. However, this whole "I don't go negative and don't attack" while attacking and making all these insinuations is annoying. Not only that, it doesn't make any sense.

I'd prefer he just go all in rather than try and have it both ways. An open brawl like 08 would be better than this mixed bag of nonsense. It makes it so Hillary has to take the hits and is put in a weird position while not being able to go negative on him. Just seems unfair how he's positioned this.
 
People that like Trump aren't looking for substantive answers and I don't think most people watch the debates for much more than optics. His side is looking for bombast and confidence. I'm not sure why people think he'll perform poorly. Rubio AND Cruz would both do worse against Hillary IMO.

People that like Trump are a minority even in the Republican party. Playing to his converts does nothing but result in a Democratic wave election.
 
I don't care about gun control, but I'm talking about how money in politics does impact policy decisions.

The general idea is that companies would not lobby politicians and devote resources if there causes were not being served.

You can't say I'll take large amounts of money from pharmaceutical, communications, and finance companies while serving a duty that often involves keeping them in check if the public's interests are diminished.

Right, I get all of that. What I'm saying is that if you actually look at why the NRA always wins its not because of money. Its because their voters turn out. If liberals want to achieve their goals they have to vote whenever elections are held. Not just twice ever four years.
 
Bernie is doing his best to encourage hate in his followers towards Hillary which could hurt her chances in the general. The second she says something about him like him wanting to primary Obama in 2012 he says its a low blow. Fuck the guy. She has pretty much stayed above board on his character and just been based on policy attacks.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I think he should drag it out. He is well within his right to fight her as hard as he can to win the nomination.. However, this whole "I don't go negative and don't attack" while attacking and making all these insinuations is annoying. Not only that, it doesn't make any sense.

I'd prefer he just go all in rather than try and have it both ways. An open brawl like 08 would be better than this mixed bag of nonsense. It makes it so Hillary has to take the hits and is put in a weird position while not being able to go negative on him. Just seems unfair how he's positioned this.

Which is exactly how I feel. If you're going to attack your opponent and go negative then own up to it. Don't pretend you're having a clean fight while throwing rabbit punches and hitting below the belt. When Obama and Clinton went at it in 2008 they were fairly straight up about the fact they were hitting each other from what I remember.
 

ctothej

Member
Are we gonna get more polling for the Super Tuesday states? It seems weird that we had one every day or two for Iowa/NH yet many of the Super Tuesday states haven't even had one poll in 2016.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Are we gonna get more polling for the Super Tuesday states? It seems weird that we had one every day or two for Iowa/NH yet many of the Super Tuesday states haven't even had one poll in 2016.

PPP did the lot of them a week ago, but don't expect a lot of polling until after South Carolina and Nevada.
 
The time for laughing off Trump is long past. He's immune to the usual laws of political gravity and he isn't bound by orthodoxy or decorum.

I don't see why. It's pretty easy to account for his success. He's appealed to racist working class white conservatives whose interests were out of step with their political party. By doing this he's gained the support of a plurality of Republican primary voters and with a weak Republican field of candidates that's enough (so far). But to do that he had to piss off nearly every group outside of his base. His favorability numbers are terrible even among Republicans, let alone the rest of the electorate. His presence in the race will energize the Democratic base. As a general election candidate, he's extremely weak.
 
March 6th and 9th debates are going to be a Sanders throw down.

Will he do it to her face? Talking to the press is one thing...I'm not sure he's going to go all out in the debate. It also allows Hillary to now take the high road ("Senator Sanders promised he would not run a negative campaign, and spent the last few debates agreeing with me. Now he is etc etc etc.").
 
ITT I learn that donating large amounts of money to peoples campaigns absolutely doesn't influence peoples policy provisions and that corporations make these large donations out of the goodness of their hearts despite the fact that the first duty of a public corporation is to its share holders.

Seriously ? You're genuinely arguing that taking huge amounts of money from people has no influence on politicians. This isn't an argument you'd be making about Republican candidates. It doesn't suddenly become less true because its a Democrat taking the cash.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Will he do it to her face? Talking to the press is one thing...I'm not sure he's going to go all out in the debate. It also allows Hillary to now take the high road ("Senator Sanders promised he would not run a negative campaign, and spent the last few debates agreeing with me. Now he is etc etc etc.").

It also opens the door for her to throw down depending on how hard he attacks and from what we saw in 2008 I'm not so sure he'll want to do that.
 
Bernie is doing his best to encourage hate in his followers towards Hillary which could hurt her chances in the general. The second she says something about him like him wanting to primary Obama in 2012 he says its a low blow. Fuck the guy. She has pretty much stayed above board on his character and just been based on policy attacks.

Wonder how long he can skate on this subject. Whenever it's brought up at debates he just like "lol no I didn't'. Seems fake as hell and counter the the image he's crafted for himself. Own that shit, Bern.

ITT I learn that donating large amounts of money to peoples campaigns absolutely doesn't influence peoples policy provisions and that corporations make these large donations out of the goodness of their hearts despite the fact that the first duty of a public corporation is to its share holders.

Seriously ? You're genuinely arguing that taking huge amounts of money from people has no influence on politicians. This isn't an argument you'd be making about Republican candidates. It doesn't suddenly become less true because its a Democrat taking the cash.
So where do you go from here? Is every politician other than Bernie a corrupt piece of shit?
 

PBY

Banned
ITT I learn that donating large amounts of money to peoples campaigns absolutely doesn't influence peoples policy provisions and that corporations make these large donations out of the goodness of their hearts despite the fact that the first duty of a public corporation is to its share holders.

Seriously ? You're genuinely arguing that taking huge amounts of money from people has no influence on politicians. This isn't an argument you'd be making about Republican candidates. It doesn't suddenly become less true because its a Democrat taking the cash.

Who is saying that the bolded isn't true?
 
People that like Trump are a minority even in the Republican party. Playing to his converts does nothing but result in a Democratic wave election.

So he pulls back on some of his more caustic rhetoric. I'm merely talking style. People watch these debates for the gotcha moments more than substance. Rubio is weak and Cruz is annoying to watch speak. I honestly hope I'm wrong, but I'm losing what little faith I have in the American electorate.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
ITT I learn that donating large amounts of money to peoples campaigns absolutely doesn't influence peoples policy provisions and that corporations make these large donations out of the goodness of their hearts despite the fact that the first duty of a public corporation is to its share holders.

Seriously ? You're genuinely arguing that taking huge amounts of money from people has no influence on politicians. This isn't an argument you'd be making about Republican candidates. It doesn't suddenly become less true because its a Democrat taking the cash.

I'd say there is some disagreements into the amount of influence it has. Perhaps I missed it, but i'm not seeing anyone saying it has NO influence.
 

pigeon

Banned
The time for laughing off Trump is long past. He's immune to the usual laws of political gravity and he isn't bound by orthodoxy or decorum.

In the Republican primary.

Party primaries aren't general elections. They just aren't. Adverse selection is a big deal. Only the craziest and most intense partisans turn out for party primaries, and they have specific weird expectations and desires. "Be more racist" turns out to be one of those desires on the GOP side, which frankly should not be surprising.

None of that "political gravity" stuff matters at all in a Republican primary. But the people turning out for this primary is a tiny fraction of the people that will turn out in the general, and stuff matters there that didn't matter in the primary.

The entire reason the GOP wants to stop him from winning the Republican primary is that they're terrified he will destroy the entire party in the general election. This is data-driven! They looked into it! There is good reason to assume their analysis is better founded than yours.

That's fine - but what does he have to gain when he's nearly mathematically fucked? I mean, hang in it - but just know what you say know WILL be picked up by the GOP and be blasted nationally attacking Hillary

I have to be honest, I think this fantasy football politics stuff is really tedious. Everybody has ideas about what will work in the campaign and what won't work in the campaign. Almost all of it turns out to be irrelevant (remember that 47% video? didn't move the polls in any meaningful way) and the only way to identify what does matter is, you know, with expensive and time-consuming audience research. What you and I think will play or won't play is pretty much irrelevant -- here I'm talking especially about the omnipresent argument of whether being a socialist will matter in the general election.

I expect Bernie to endorse Hillary when he loses (admittedly, it will be more awkward now), and I expect the majority of his voters to accept that and join up.

But in the end, either a voter is a rational actor or they aren't. If they are, they will choose the candidate whose policies best align with their preferred policy bouquet and vote for them, and if they previously supported Sanders that almost certainly lands them with Hillary. If they aren't, then making any sort of plan about controlling their vote is doomed to failure anyway.
 
Who is saying that the bolded isn't true?

If the bolded is true then the idea that Hillary is absolutely spotless on this, as the last page of discussion seems to imply seems a bit questionable. If the money has an influence on policy then clearly the money is a valid policy complaint (it may also be a personal attack but I'm really not okay with the idea that policy attacks that coincide with personal ones should be off limits, that potentially handwaves a lot of serious issues).
 
Speaking of Trump and minority groups, the latest episode from This American Life has a segment about a die hard 18 years old Trump supporter who is black, gay, and an Evangelical Christian. While TAL is covering him, Trump comes out during the debate to supporting future SCOTUS justices who would overturn gay marriage. His logic is... interesting to say the least.

There was a TAL segment about Trump supporters a few weeks ago also. But it wasn't until this story that I really got what makes Trump supporters tick.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
I seriously can't believe that you guys are complaining because Bernie is actually going to do his best to win the nomination instead of throwing in the towel. Don't like that he's going to drag this out? TOUGH TITTIES.

Hillary's not going to get a coronation. Get over it.

I seriously can only take this Hillary echo chamber in doses. It's like alt-reddit up in this bitch.
Agreed. If NeoXChaos is right that primaries make candidates stronger, than people here shouldn't be in such a hurry for Bernie to drop. The indication some say that Bernie is done might be true, but I take it with less seriousness I would otherwise because that's what they want to be the case ASAP.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
If the bolded is true then the idea that Hillary is absolutely spotless on this, as the last page of discussion seems to imply seems a bit questionable. If the money has an influence on policy then clearly the money is a valid policy complaint (it may also be a personal attack but I'm really not okay with the idea that policy attacks that coincide with personal ones should be off limits, that potentially handwaves a lot of serious issues).

It depends entirely on the candidate. Someone like Scott Walker is totally 100% bought and paid for, but this isn't always true of every candidate. It depends entirely on why the donation is being made, it could be they want to buy a favor or it could be they just agree with the person running on an important issue.

Also, you're entirely ignoring the three or four studies we have that show that whatever a candidate runs on is what they try to do when elected.
 
Will he do it to her face? Talking to the press is one thing...I'm not sure he's going to go all out in the debate. It also allows Hillary to now take the high road ("Senator Sanders promised he would not run a negative campaign, and spent the last few debates agreeing with me. Now he is etc etc etc.").
He will wag his finger like Mutumbo and shake his head, all indignant. When the moderator turns to him to respond, he wont even tell you what part he disagreed with and go off on a "pull string for a 10 second rant about Wall St".
 

starmud

Member
I don't see how Bernie gets negative... It would have to be a gradual build. Even then it hurts his messaging and makes him look like the politician that he is... He sharpened his attack today but still remains too vague. He has a hard line to walk with Hillary and not much time to bring her down...
 
Agreed. If NeoXChaos is right that primaries make candidates stronger, than people here shouldn't be in such a hurry for Bernie to drop. The indication some say that Bernie is done might be true, but I take it with less seriousness I would otherwise because that's what they want to be the case ASAP.

He never really had much of a chance so he needed a strong start. He's not going to be able to tip enough states at this point to even have a chance since no one is going to be reconsidering in his favour while he's clearly losing (short of Hillary shooting herself in the foot and that's unlikely).
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Agreed. If NeoXChaos is right that primaries make candidates stronger, than people here shouldn't be in such a hurry for Bernie to drop. The indication some say that Bernie is done might be true, but I take it with less seriousness I would otherwise because that's what they want to be the case ASAP.

I think the extent it prepares you is less then you suspect. The attacks come from a totally different direction for starters. It does allow you to help build a "ground game" and reach people with your message.
 

pigeon

Banned
I firmly believe this is THE major issue of why this country had as sharp of an economic crash as it did in 2008. Obama was able to bring the country back from death, but if you continue to do the same stupid things you did before without open and public examination, then I think everyone is just banging their heads against the wall.

So draw this line. Seriously! I want to hear the argument here. How, specifically, did payoffs from Wall Street to Congress lead to the financial crash in 2008? What were the regulatory failures? What were the carve-outs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom