• 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.
If Sanders people think Clinton is a conservative hawk, Tulsi Gabbard will make their heads explode. She would be a good option if the left overreaches and fails. Similar to Bill Clinton being the answer to the failures of Dukkakis and Mondale.
 
I love how Trump called Cruz a pussy not for Cruz dodging attacking Trump in every debate, but because Cruz was uncomfortable with torture *drinks Vaseline*
 

benjipwns

Banned
Here's the NH ballots (scroll down past all the wards), for Cornish, home of Clark Rockefeller, Learned Hand and JD Salinger:
DEM: http://sos.nh.gov/DemBal16PP.aspx?id=8589953433
GOP: http://sos.nh.gov/RepBal16PP.aspx?id=8589953122

EDIT: Aw, hell, I'll just post em:
mSH2lBN.png
35L2Idp.png
 
If Sanders people think Clinton is a conservative hawk, Tulsi Gabbard will make their heads explode. She would be a good option if the left overreaches and fails. Similar to Bill Clinton being the answer to the failures of Dukkakis and Mondale.

I was thinking she would make an excellent 2024 VP selection. By then she will be old enough to not put people on edge, and puts a decorated veteran on the presidential ticket.
 
If Sanders people think Clinton is a conservative hawk, Tulsi Gabbard will make their heads explode. She would be a good option if the left overreaches and fails. Similar to Bill Clinton being the answer to the failures of Dukkakis and Mondale.
She's a war fan? On the issues says she supports reducing defense spending.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I was thinking she would make an excellent 2024 VP selection. By then she will be old enough to not put people on edge, and puts a decorated veteran on the presidential ticket.
HINDUISM

SIBLINGS: BHAKTI, JAI, ARYAN, VRINDAVAN

BORN IN FOREIGN NATION OF AMERICAN SAMOA, NOW LIVES IN KINGDOM OF HAWAI'I

When voting against legalizing civil unions, she stated: "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue.... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."
whoops

Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente is an amazing name.
His nickname is less cool than his given name.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Say Hillary loses.

And this is your 2020 Democratic Field:
Martin O'Malley, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Antonio Villarigosa, Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, Bill de Blasio, Gary Locke, Mike Beebe

yay/nay/oh god the goggles

Or does one of these more ideal candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand get in. (She didn't run only because of Hillary right? Right? She seems like the best Democratic candidate to me. But then I also thought Scott Walker would be the GOP candidate by attrition.)
 
Say Hillary loses.

And this is your 2020 Democratic Field:
Martin O'Malley, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Antonio Villarigosa, Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, Bill de Blasio, Gary Locke, Mike Beebe

yay/nay/oh god the goggles

Or does one of these more ideal candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand get in. (She didn't run only because of Hillary right? Right?)

I'm not super informed on a lot of those folks, but I have a pretty favorable view of Harris and de Blasio.
 
She's still my girl. I still believe she wins. I still want her to be our nominee, but I want someone in that campaign to get their shit together. It's absolutely ridiculous that she's doing some of the same shit this time as last time. Her messaging has been shit. Get something cognizant together and freaking run with it.



Of course. I've always said Bernie will win New Hampshire. Anything less than that would have been a repudiation of him as a candidate and a person. That wasn't going to happen. However, my shitty math was only to show that, while it's not ideal, Hillary being down that much among 18-29 year olds is only a problem if she doesn't perform the way she has historically among older voters. She keeps those margins, and keeps her margins among PoC, Bernie can get 100% of the 18-29 year olds and it wouldn't make that much difference.
I don't understand why I was getting so much shade when I was saying this! She's a weak candidate. A 74 y/o self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist should never have stolen young women from a strong female candidate, among the many other problems with her campaign. She can't answer the fucking Wall Street question, even. She's getting closer, but she has been far too dismissive of the implications in the minds of voters about that. They've had 20-some years of the other side pounding into peoples' heads that she's shady as fuck, and then she DOES something that looks shady as fuck and her response is very little beyond dismissiveness.
 
Say Hillary loses.

And this is your 2020 Democratic Field:
Martin O'Malley, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Antonio Villarigosa, Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, Bill de Blasio, Gary Locke, Mike Beebe

yay/nay/oh god the goggles

Or does one of these more ideal candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand get in. (She didn't run only because of Hillary right? Right? She seems like the best Democratic candidate to me. But then I also thought Scott Walker would be the GOP candidate by attrition.)

Hopefully Rahm is in prison or quit politics due to pressure by 2019.

I mean, if Trump or Cruz win the presidency, basically any Democrat would win in 2020 so the best candidates will definitely run. If it's Rubio... it's more questionable.
 
Say Hillary loses.

And this is your 2020 Democratic Field:
Martin O'Malley, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Antonio Villarigosa, Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, Bill de Blasio, Gary Locke, Mike Beebe

yay/nay/oh god the goggles

Or does one of these more ideal candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand get in. (She didn't run only because of Hillary right? Right? She seems like the best Democratic candidate to me. But then I also thought Scott Walker would be the GOP candidate by attrition.)

O'Malley or Gillibrand in 2020 would probably take care of business.
 
Well we did have Martin O'Malley who's only 53. Then you have people like Kirsten Gillibrand at 49, Julian Castro at 41, and Tulsi Gabbard who is off to a promising career at 34.

EDIT: Forgot Cory Booker at 46 and Andrew Cuomo at 58.

Cuomo is corrupt as fuck and should be nowhere near the White House.
 

Jay-Hova

Banned
Hope Bernie's able to keep it up after New Hampshire.
But it's looking like Hilary has this.
I think O'Malley is a pretty terrible campaigner. The way he hamfisted "And yes, black lives do matter" into so many of his debate/townhall responses made me cringe every single time.
And him and Hillary were the only candidates out of the three that didn't say it at first and said ALM instead.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I don't understand why I was getting so much shade when I was saying this! She's a weak candidate. A 74 y/o self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist should never have stolen young women from a strong female candidate, among the many other problems with her campaign. She can't answer the fucking Wall Street question, even. She's getting closer, but she has been far too dismissive of the implications in the minds of voters about that. They've had 20-some years of the other side pounding into peoples' heads that she's shady as fuck, and then she DOES something that looks shady as fuck and her response is very little beyond dismissiveness.
What do you want her to do, make a gaffe? The media would cover that instead of the substantive issues.
 
I think O'Malley is a pretty terrible campaigner. The way he hamfisted "And yes, black lives do matter" into so many of his debate/townhall responses made me cringe every single time.

He will be more refined and going against weaker candidates than the juggernaut that is Hillary in the future.

Cuomo is corrupt as fuck and should be nowhere near the White House.

I don't disagree for a second, but he's a younger Democrat with Executive experience.
 
I'm not super informed on a lot of those folks, but I have a pretty favorable view of Harris and de Blasio.

de Blasio isn't a serious Presidential candidate. As much as I think he's gotten a raw deal, he's been a largely unpopular mayor who has horrible approval ratings with white New Yorkers and has faced constant questions about his leadership.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
de Blasio isn't a serious Presidential candidate. As much as I think he's gotten a raw deal, he's been a largely unpopular mayor who has horrible approval ratings with white New Yorkers and has faced constant questions about his leadership.

Pretty much. He'll probably get reelected, but that's more because of his great numbers with african-americans and hispanics. It sucks because I do like him, but if we're gonna have a NY president it'll be Gillibrand.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Jeez, inverse Bernie numbers:
Black voters approve of de Blasio 77 - 11 percent and Hispanic voters approve 66 - 29 percent, while white voters disapprove 67 - 27 percent. De Blasio gets a 49 - 39 percent overall favorability rating, with black voter favorability at 81 - 6 percent and Hispanic voter favorability at 57 - 29 percent. White voters give de Blasio a negative 28 - 64 percent favorability rating.
 
Jeez, inverse Bernie numbers:

Almost any time black people widely approve of a politician that white people disapprove of, it signals to me that the particular politician is doing a lot right.


cartoon_soldier said:
Not to Bernie bros


You can do better than this. Mentioning Bernie bros and not going on to actually make a point is just a shallow level of discussion. I have no sympathy for anyone who would qualify as a "bernie bro", but it isn't a compelling argument to drop the insult and walk away.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Jeez, inverse Bernie numbers:

His stance on cops killing black people (that it's bad) killed him with white voters in the city. The police union still has a lot of sway in the city, among white people anyway.

Almost any time black people widely approve of a politician that white people disapprove of, it signals to me that the particular politician is doing a lot right.

In this case part of it is his own doing, rookie mistakes like showing up late to stuff doesn't help. But the cop thing doesn't help matters. Neither does admitting he gave his kids the cop talk. That did not go over well at all.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Came across this old article about Obama's keynote speech in 2004, that had this better little nugget in it:
During one practice session, a Kerry speechwriter interrupted to say that Obama would need to rephrase or cut one of the lines from his speech because it was too similar to a line in Kerry’s acceptance remarks. The line in question was the climax to Obama’s famous passage on the red-states, blue-states divide. That passage, as Obama delivered it, reads: “The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states-red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states.” Axelrod says Obama had originally written the passage to end with something like, “We’re not red states and blue states; we’re all Americans, standing up together for the red, white, and blue.” But to satisfy Kerry’s speechwriters, Axelrod says, Obama grudgingly cut out the line. A transcript of Kerry’s competing text reads: “Maybe some just see us divided into those red states and blue states, but I see us as one America: red, white, and blue.”

After the rehearsal ended, Obama was furious. “That fucker is trying to steal a line from my speech,” he griped to Axelrod in the car on the way back to their hotel, according to another campaign aide who was there but asked to remain anonymous. Axelrod says he does not recollect exactly what Obama said to him. “He was unhappy about it, yeah,” he says, but adds that Obama soon cooled down. “Ultimately, his feeling was: They had given him this great opportunity; who was he to quibble over one line?”

Convention officials confirm that Obama was told to change his line, but they could not say for sure if Kerry-or, more likely, his speechwriters-had pilfered it. Still, several convention officials who spoke on condition of anonymity say pilfering happened elsewhere. Take the line “I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty,” the opening words of Kerry’s speech, which he delivered with a crisp military salute. That line, insiders say, was originally in a speech written by Max Cleland, the former senator from Georgia who had lost three limbs in Vietnam. After Kerry’s team read Cleland’s remark, they decided to appropriate it. “They stole that line,” says one official. “They said to Cleland: ‘Guess what: Kerry likes your closing line so much he wants to use it.’” The official added, “I don’t believe that was the case with Obama; I have to take them at their word that the line was already in Kerry’s speech.”

Also, TIEGHAZI:
A couple of hours before he was scheduled to go on, Obama had a wardrobe problem. He had a handsome black suit, but his wife, Michelle, didn’t like his ties.

Gibbs was dressing in his hotel room, getting ready to put on a blue tie, when Axelrod knocked on his door. “Axelrod said, ‘That one’s good,’ and he took it,” says Gibbs. Michelle Obama approved of the new tie, but Gibbs says Obama grumbled until he got to the convention hall and one of the makeup stylists told him, “That’s a really nice tie.”
 
His stance on cops killing black people (that it's bad) killed him with white voters in the city. The police union still has a lot of sway in the city, among white people anyway.



In this case part of it is his own doing, rookie mistakes like showing up late to stuff doesn't help. But the cop thing doesn't help matters.

Fear of black people has a lot of sway among white people
 
Say Hillary loses.

And this is your 2020 Democratic Field:
Martin O'Malley, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Antonio Villarigosa, Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, Bill de Blasio, Gary Locke, Mike Beebe

yay/nay/oh god the goggles

Or does one of these more ideal candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand get in. (She didn't run only because of Hillary right? Right? She seems like the best Democratic candidate to me. But then I also thought Scott Walker would be the GOP candidate by attrition.)

Schweitzer.
 
Say Hillary loses.

And this is your 2020 Democratic Field:
Martin O'Malley, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Antonio Villarigosa, Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, Bill de Blasio, Gary Locke, Mike Beebe

yay/nay/oh god the goggles

Or does one of these more ideal candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand get in. (She didn't run only because of Hillary right? Right? She seems like the best Democratic candidate to me. But then I also thought Scott Walker would be the GOP candidate by attrition.)

Duckworth
 
B_dubs said:
In this case part of it is his own doing, rookie mistakes like showing up late to stuff doesn't help. But the cop thing doesn't help matters. Neither does admitting he gave his kids the cop talk. That did not go over well at all.

I get that he's done some things that don't make for good political choices, but I'll be damned if they weren't good moral choices.


The showing up late stuff is hard to excuse, though. You gotta be on point when you're fighting such contentious fights.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I just want to point out that, while he's not doing that hot with white people, he is proposing some stuff that is long overdue, such as better connecting Brooklyn and Queens.

It is a frustrating conundrum of commuting in the boroughs of New York City outside Manhattan: A destination in Brooklyn or Queens might be just a few miles away, but getting there by public transportation can be a trek. It might involve long walks, long bus rides or, quite possibly, a swing through Manhattan by train.

“I hear this complaint every day,” said Bert Louis, a barista at Matte Cafe, near the East River, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. “It’s crazy. There’s got to be an easier way.”

On Thursday, Mayor Bill de Blasio unveiled a proposal that could help ease some of those complaints: a 16-mile streetcar line running through neighborhoods along the East River in Brooklyn and Queens. The $2.5 billion proposal is aimed at improving accessibility to stretches of the city that have seen an influx of residents in recent years but are still poorly served by the subway system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/nyregion/streetcar-line-between-brooklyn-and-queens-mayor-de-blasio-proposal.html

The only people that don't like this idea live in Staten Island, and that's because they wanted one first. Something like this is long overdue and at least someone gives a shit about Queens for once.

I get that he's done some things that don't make for good political choices, but I'll be damned if they weren't good moral choices.


The showing up late stuff is hard to excuse, though. You gotta be on point when you're fighting such contentious fights.

Oh I'm with you, I love the guy. He's the first mayor in my memory that cares about more than just Manhattan.
 
Say Hillary loses.

And this is your 2020 Democratic Field:
Martin O'Malley, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Antonio Villarigosa, Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, Bill de Blasio, Gary Locke, Mike Beebe

yay/nay/oh god the goggles

Or does one of these more ideal candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand get in. (She didn't run only because of Hillary right? Right? She seems like the best Democratic candidate to me. But then I also thought Scott Walker would be the GOP candidate by attrition.)

What about Tammy Duckworth? In this scenario she can raise some profile in the Senate until 2020, I think?
 
"Bernie bros" is the most offensive, lazy, and irritating phrase to come out of this election.

I don't mean to downplay the existence of bernie bros, but Hillary very clearly has a voters-under-35 problem, not a white-male-voters-under-35 problem. "Bernie bros" seems like a way to discount Hillary's horrible standing with anyone born after 1980 as much as it is an actual critique of the sexism we've seen.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I don't mean to downplay the existence of bernie bros, but Hillary very clearly has a voters-under-35 problem, not a white-male-voters-under-35 problem. "Bernie bros" seems like a way to discount Hillary's horrible standing with anyone born after 1980 as much as it is an actual critique of the sexism we've seen.

It's more a white voters under-35 problem, she's clearly winning AA's and is competitive with hispanics in that demo.
 

Holmes

Member
"Bernie bros" refers to those 18-25 year old white guys on Twitter and Reddit that freak out and say overtly sexist and racist things to whoever criticizes Sanders. It doesn't refer to actual male Sanders supporters below the age of 35.
 
So, I finally got around to reading this article in Foreign Policy: The Hillary Clinton Doctrine from late last year.

It's actually a pretty interesting insight into her right and wrong calls, her agreements and disagreements with other members of the administration, and the background and worldview behind the decisions she made or advocated. It's long, so I'm not sure anyone else will read it but it concludes:

Would the United States of 2017 be well served by a President Hillary Clinton? That question, of course, begs another question: Compared to whom?

None of the Republican candidates for president know the world remotely as well as Clinton does. The two front-runners, Donald Trump and Ben Carson, seem to know less about the subject than the average newspaper reader. Asked whom he looks to for foreign policy advice, Trump famously responded: "I really watch the shows." Bernie Sanders, Clinton's only serious rival for the Democratic nomination, almost never discusses the world beyond America's borders, though on his website he notes that he favors more diplomacy and less military action, and considers his vote against the war in Iraq "one of the most important he has cast." Of the more substantive Republican candidates, Rand Paul would reduce American engagements abroad, while Marco Rubio would serve far more as commander in chief than as diplomat in chief, wielding the great American military hammer to address problems that bear very little resemblance to a nail. Jeb Bush might be somewhat less bellicose. But both Rubio and Bush would seek to roll back the nuclear agreement with Iran, to impose greater restraints on Russia, to get tough on China, and reverse Obama’s opening to Cuba. They would presumably give short shrift to such global issues as climate change. Would they be preferable to a President Clinton? Only if America’s chief problem in the world is that it is, to use Donald Trump’s favorite word, “weak.”

It’s a harder question to answer if we compare Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. The president deserves high marks for his relentless focus on global problems, above all nuclear nonproliferation and climate change. He showed both courage and imagination in guiding relations with Iran over six turbulent years in order to reach a nuclear deal that, while unavoidably limited, curbs a grave threat to world peace. He adapted to a violent and chaotic world by authorizing the use of force far more often than he ever would have expected to, or would have wanted. At the same time, Obama often gave the impression that traditional geopolitics, like traditional congressional politics, bored him. He seems to have been taken by surprise by the level of state-to-state competition the United States faced, whether from rivals like Russia or China or allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. What's more, Obama absorbed something of the fatigue and self-absorption of the American people, at times catering to their surly mood by readily accepting a diminished role for the United States in world affairs.

A President Clinton would face a very different world from the one Obama inherited. Geopolitical competition is now an unarguable fact of life. Precisely because Clinton is a more traditional figure than Obama, this may be a world to which she is more naturally adapted. Obama did not apply much of his mind to making perpetual adjustments in the dial of bilateral relations; Clinton applied all of hers, and would surely do so as president. The single most barbed thing Clinton said in her Atlantic interview was, "Great nations need organizing principles, and `Don't do stupid stuff'" — a PG-rated version of a phrase for which Obama was much mocked — "is not an organizing principle." Clinton has spent so many years thriving despite adversity that the toxic combination of recalcitrant rivals, an implacably hostile Congress, and an isolationist public may not daunt her as it did Obama. Conflict is her natural milieu.

Hillary Clinton will not put a new face on America, as Obama did; there is hardly a face more familiar than hers. But America is no longer in recovery from George W. Bush, and it is no longer in urgent need of a new face. What it needs is a fresh source of inspiration, a sense that the world matters and that American leadership matters, a recognition that power is not a bad thing so long as it is accompanied by humility and restraint. The pendulum of American action in the world swung very sharply from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. Perhaps it now needs to swing in a more modest arc from Obama to Hillary Clinton.
 
"Bernie bros" refers to those 18-25 year old white guys on Twitter and Reddit that freak out and say overtly sexist and racist things to whoever criticizes Sanders. It doesn't refer to actual male Sanders supporters below the age of 35.

Didn't Obama supporters have their own (very similar) derogatory term courtesy of the Clinton 2008 Campaign? It's like Groundhog Day going against the Clinton Campaign.
 
It's more a white voters under-35 problem, she's clearly winning AA's and is competitive with hispanics in that demo.

Actually, I'm not sure that I've seen any polling specifically on 18-35 (or 18-30, whatever) black or hispanic voters. I'd be curious to see if Hillary's lead holds even in that age range.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Actually, I'm not sure that I've seen any polling specifically on 18-35 (or 18-30, whatever) black or hispanic voters. I'd be curious to see if Hillary's lead holds even in that age range.

There was one a few weeks back that made the rounds and if those numbers were real, Bernie is winning 18-24 whites huge, losing 18-24 blacks just as big, and is barely winning 18-24 hispanics. From there he has a decent win with 25-30 whites, loses 25-30 blacks huge and also loses 25-30 hispanics a decent amount. After that it's all Hillary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom