• 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.
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
NeoXChaos said:
There has been no polling to suggest Hillary can't win MN. We've only had one CO 49-43 Bernie when we know caucuses are hard to poll. MA is a tie. OK is a slight Hillary lead.
Click to expand...

I think MN probably has the highest chance for Bernie just because of how liberal the state is and how engaged the electorate, including students, is in general, but I wouldn't call it anywhere near a sure thing.
 
U

UltimaPooh

Member
EskimoJoe said:
How close to the election do you think we could be before the GOP excuse of "its too close to the election for a SCOTUS nominee" becomes convincing for the American electorate. Like, people maybe be against waiting now, but in September, I'm willing to bet people would accept it. Have to keep that in mind when considering the GOP delay strategy. The longer they keep it going, the more reasonable it may appear to be to people.
Click to expand...

That's another interesting thought.

I would say end of summer.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
Trying to prop up a candidate who has thusfar only been attacked by a pillow from his candidate in the primary as the more "electable" one is one of the most intellectually disingenuous things that Glenn could post, but there it is.

It's a stupid argument. The most attacking Hillary has done to Bernie has been a firm hug.
Click to expand...

Attacking him as a socialist won't work so long as we earnestly explain he's actually a social democrat, right?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
The Technomancer said:
I think MN probably has the highest chance for Bernie just because of how liberal the state is and how engaged the electorate, including students, is in general, but I wouldn't call it anywhere near a sure thing.
Click to expand...

Your right but its a similar electorate as IA. She can handle it. Will it be narrow? Yes
 
I

Incognito

Troll
RustyNails said:
Sandoval is a trial balloon. No problems vetting him. Appear considering both conservative as well as liberal justices for the job. Make Mitch McConnell answer for politicizing the issue despite a candidate seems to be idealogically republican. Also get a pulse of the democratic base in a centrist choice. 3 birds with one stone. He's not going to nominate him.
Click to expand...

but this is obama man. no public option. no banksters in jail. taxes only up 3% on top marginal rates. no loop hole closure on carried interest. no immigration reform. i mean, hes selected about a million republicans for sec of defense. this guy. 3 dimensional chess is really just code for short term political gains. wouldnt be surprised if he chose someone more right than sandoval as his final act so he gets one last and big middle finger to his committed and unwavering liberal base. this guy.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Box of Kittens said:
Attacking him as a socialist won't work so long as we earnestly explain he's actually a social democrat, right?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the GOP have called every Democratic candidate for anything a socialist since McCarthy and the Star Chamber and the Unamerican Actiivies Committee were a thing and I seriously question that if anyone who's legitimately concerned about the word, such that its a high political priority, cares if it's true..
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Incognito said:
but this is obama man. no public option. no banksters in jail. taxes only up 3% on top marginal rates. no loop hole closure on carried interest. no immigration reform. i mean, hes selected about a million republicans for sec of defense. this guy. 3 dimensional chess is really just code for short term political gains. wouldnt be surprised if he chose someone more right than sandoval as his final act so he gets one last and big middle finger to his committed and unwavering liberal base. this guy.
Click to expand...

Amazingly, basically none of these items are things Obama can control. The public option wasn't included in the ACA because senate Democrats threatened to filibuster the bill. The President doesn't have the ability to just throw people in jail because their business goes under. He has proposed everything else you mentioned except for the higher tax rate but was blocked by the Senate.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
Roland_Gunner said:
Amazingly, basically none of these items are things Obama can control. The public option wasn't included in the ACA because senate Democrats threatened to filibuster the bill. The President doesn't have the ability to just throw people in jail because their business goes under. He has proposed everything else you mentioned except for the higher tax rate but was blocked by the Senate.
Click to expand...

sounds like he should read some robert caro then if you ask me.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Roland_Gunner said:
Amazingly, basically none of these items are things Obama can control. The public option wasn't included in the ACA because senate Democrats threatened to filibuster the bill. The President doesn't have the ability to just throw people in jail because their business goes under. He has proposed everything else you mentioned except for the higher tax rate but was blocked by the Senate.
Click to expand...

Judging by the post title I'm pretty sure that title he's just doing a (bad) impression of what PolIGAF earnestly believes all Sanders' supporters believe.

Though I'm not sure how you can suggest with a straight face that certain institutions weren't handled with kid gloves by the DoJ after the crisis.
 
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
UltimaPooh said:
That's another interesting thought.

I would say end of summer.
Click to expand...

That's the danger. The delay strategy doesn't have to mean "do nothing for nine months." It can mean "drag your feet and do what you should be doing, but incredibly slowly." The first few weeks of either strategy will look the same. We'll have to see which one they're actually doing in time.
 
J

jtb

Banned
even if Cruz continues to fade, I don't see why those votes would go to Rubio more than Trump. I'd love for Kasich to continue through Ohio for shits and giggles, but I don't even know if that's a necessary prerequisite to Trump locking this thing up, winner-take-all states be damned.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
A hypothetical Trump press conference after a hypothetical brokered convention would probably be one of the greatest moments this decade (and maybe my lifetime).
 
B

BoboBrazil

Member
fantomena said:
This popped up on my FB-feed.

UNLESS THE DEMOCRATS RUN SANDERS, A TRUMP NOMINATION MEANS A TRUMP PRESIDENCY
Click to expand...

Guy that wrote this article

pAdfw5mt.jpeg
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
EskimoJoe said:
That's the danger. The delay strategy doesn't have to mean "do nothing for nine months." It can mean "drag your feet and do what you should be doing, but incredibly slowly." The first few weeks of either strategy will look the same. We'll have to see which one they're actually doing in time.
Click to expand...

The thing is that they've publicly committed to "do nothing for nine months." It would've been a lot safer for them to pretend they'd entertain a nominee then drag their feet long enough to run out the clock, but my guess is they're afraid the base wouldn't even allow them to get away with that.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
jtb said:
even if Cruz continues to fade, I don't see why those votes would go to Rubio more than Trump. I'd love for Kasich to continue through Ohio for shits and giggles, but I don't even know if that's a necessary prerequisite to Trump locking this thing up, winner-take-all states be damned.
Click to expand...

Last poll had Rubio getting 33% of his votes, Trump getting 26%.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Elaugaufein said:
Judging by the post title I'm pretty sure that title he's just doing a (bad) impression of what PolIGAF earnestly believes all Sanders' supporters believe.

Though I'm not sure how you can suggest with a straight face that certain institutions weren't handled with kid gloves by the DoJ after the crisis.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out that handy warning. Getting convictions in complicated financial cases is really hard! One of the reasons DoJ keeps going after insider trading cases is that there is a clear paper trail that the jury can follow. Look at the recent Libor cases in the UK. On paper those should have been slam dunks but the prosecutor could only get 1 conviction out of 6.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...libor-trial-acquitted-by-london-jury-ijwyzwye
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Trump-Kasich would make such odd bedfellows but I could see it. Still think he'd pick Christie though, they're peas in a pod and Christie did Trump the biggest favor of the race by taking out Rubio for him.

Trump is up to 76c on PredictIt, go go go!
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Ophelion said:
Funny that one of the gendered words they associate with her as negative is "Queen".

That is decidedly not used negatively around these parts.
Click to expand...

I mean even if used as a negative I'm not sure how its (necessarily) sexist. It references her coronation by the party , as well as her political dynasty-ish position.

It seems like they are doing association to determine if its positive / negative though (eg Abortion is negative , while LGBT is positive. Whereas I'm pretty sure that's supporters/detractors of those things classify them differently. Also Bill and husband are rated negatively. And Bernie's positives are completely bizarre (I mean 3 of them are about Basketball)
 
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
Here's the more interesting question. Let's say polling against the GOP senate turns bad. Real bad. Further, the presidential campaign turns against them, too. Trump gets nominated, then literally shits on the constitution. Something like that. The Senate finds themselves in a position where they know that Democrats are taking the Senate and presidency. So, being the rational decision makers they are, they decide they'd rather have a moderate Obama appointee now than a liberal appointee in 2017. Suddenly it in the Democrats favor to delay a nominee. Who here supports that? Would it be cool for Obama to refuse to nominate someone because he'd rather have the next president put a liberal in?
 
U

User 406

Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...co-rubio-cresent-hardy-accomplishments-219729

lol Rubio
Click to expand...

I gotta say, I'm really warming up to the idea of a Republican who never does anything at all.


VendettaRed07 said:
You never really know which way someone who's towards the center might float over time when given the complete political freedom and protection the Supreme Court gives you.

At this point maybe it would just be better to let the republicans run out the clock and try to reap the benefits politically from it in November. We're all fucking dead if Trump wins anyway so might as well plan on Hillary winning and getting to nominate whoever she wants
Click to expand...

There's a gamble though. Obama won't be able to get a nominee that checks off all the progressive boxes, period. The very best he'll be able to do with a hostile Republican Senate is a centrist who checks off certain key progressive boxes and can serve as a swing vote. So sure, if we want to go for the leftiest leftist that ever lefted, letting McConnell and pals step on their dicks until we win the Presidency and the Senate is a good strategy.

Assuming we actually win the election.

I feel pretty damn good about our chances in November, but there's always a puncher's chance of something going wrong. And if something does go wrong and we lose, Scalia will get replaced by another Scalia, and we're just as bad off as we were and the Republican President is potentially looking at 2-3 more seats to fill.

Right now, the simple lack of Scalia has already shifted the idealogical balance of the court back to the center, and pinning it there now would be a hedge against immediately reverting to conservative. And if we win, our President will still be potentially looking at 2-3 seats to fill to swing the court even further left.

So I don't really know what the best strategy is. We could end up kicking ourselves over appointing a centrist when January rolls around, or kicking ourselves over not appointing a centrist.

I guess you've gotta ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?


lastflowers said:
Wondered what y'all more intelligent people here thought of this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...much-sexism-hillary-clinton-faces-on-twitter/
Click to expand...

I'm dubious of the methodology simply because "cunt" isn't on the chart. There's a lot more to sexism than just slurs, but at least include the worst one.
 
U

UltimaPooh

Member
EskimoJoe said:
Here's the more interesting question. Let's say polling against the GOP senate turns bad. Real bad. Further, the presidential campaign turns against them, too. Trump gets nominated, then literally shits on the constitution. Something like that. The Senate finds themselves in a position where they know that Democrats are taking the Senate and presidency. So, being the rational decision makers they are, they decide they'd rather have a moderate Obama appointee now than a liberal appointee in 2017. Suddenly it in the Democrats favor to delay a nominee. Who here supports that? Would it be cool for Obama to refuse to nominate someone because he'd rather have the next president put a liberal in?
Click to expand...

They played the card first so now they get to have a more severe punishment.

But I don't see Obama doing that. If we all think the Congress is going left as well as president... Obama can submit lefty after lefty until the new Prez comes in.

At that point it's a win for the Dems.
 
J

jtb

Banned
Plinko said:
Last poll had Rubio getting 33% of his votes, Trump getting 26%.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The remaining ~50% or so undecided? I know that Trump has been polling the worst among people that have taken the longest to decide, but I'm just having so much difficulty seeing how Rubio wins the nomination merely because everyone else forfeits? That's one hell of a strategy, I guess.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Btw that Quinnipiac poll of Ohio isn't all bad news, they have Strickland leading Portman by 2. There was another poll that had it Portman by 4 though.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
EskimoJoe said:
Here's the more interesting question. Let's say polling against the GOP senate turns bad. Real bad. Further, the presidential campaign turns against them, too. Trump gets nominated, then literally shits on the constitution. Something like that. The Senate finds themselves in a position where they know that Democrats are taking the Senate and presidency. So, being the rational decision makers they are, they decide they'd rather have a moderate Obama appointee now than a liberal appointee in 2017. Suddenly it in the Democrats favor to delay a nominee. Who here supports that? Would it be cool for Obama to refuse to nominate someone because he'd rather have the next president put a liberal in?
Click to expand...

I mean it would be more just than the initial case (turnabout and all that) but it's just as bad constitutionally speaking. Obama should put up a nominee in such a case, but he's not actually obligated to put up someone the Senate would accept (anymore than they are obliged to accept his nomine given a fair hearing).
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
EskimoJoe said:
Here's the more interesting question. Let's say polling against the GOP senate turns bad. Real bad. Further, the presidential campaign turns against them, too. Trump gets nominated, then literally shits on the constitution. Something like that. The Senate finds themselves in a position where they know that Democrats are taking the Senate and presidency. So, being the rational decision makers they are, they decide they'd rather have a moderate Obama appointee now than a liberal appointee in 2017. Suddenly it in the Democrats favor to delay a nominee. Who here supports that? Would it be cool for Obama to refuse to nominate someone because he'd rather have the next president put a liberal in?
Click to expand...

Depending on when this hypothetical is, I think the smarter move would be for Obama to just nominate a liberal. Refusing to nominate would let them off the hook for their obstruction.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
EskimoJoe said:
So, being the rational decision makers they are, they decide they'd rather have a moderate Obama appointee now than a liberal appointee in 2017. Suddenly it in the Democrats favor to delay a nominee. Who here supports that? Would it be cool for Obama to refuse to nominate someone because he'd rather have the next president put a liberal in?
Click to expand...

In theory, if Obama has already nominated someone the senate could vote them in. Even after the election. All it would take is 51 Republicans voting in favor. In practice, the nominee would probably withdraw themselves and let Clinton pick someone else.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
fantomena said:
What are swing states?
Click to expand...
States that could go to either candidate and typically are looked at to decide the election.

Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado are all swing states. Had Romney won them in 2012 he would have won the presidency. They all went for Obama, but Ohio and Florida by smaller margins than the country as a whole and Virginia and Colorado by slightly larger margins.

Because of the way the electoral college is setup, this is more important than who gets the most votes in total (the popular vote).
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Aaron Strife said:
States that could go to either candidate and typically are looked at to decide the election.

Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado are all swing states. Had Romney won them in 2012 he would have won the presidency. They all went for Obama, but Ohio and Florida by smaller margins than the country as a whole and Virginia and Colorado by slightly larger margins.

Because of the way the electoral college is setup, this is more important than who gets the most votes in total (the popular vote).
Click to expand...

There's some electoral maths were the Democrats need to win less of them than the Republicans too IIRC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
106
9K
Mr Hyde replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
53K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
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