• 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 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll

Status
Not open for further replies.

Teggy

Member
Alex Burns
1m
Alex Burns‏ @alexburnsNYT
Love Actually remake where Hugh Grant waits for Billy Bob Thornton to return to the U.S. and then gets catty

Heh, I was totally thinking of this scene earlier.
 
To illustrate my point:

CrJOs2DUEAEjw3h.jpg:large
 

pigeon

Banned
This can't be true because it would mean Trump is lying.



I feel the exact same way. Most of PoliGAF does not.

Yup, it's just you and cartoon soldier out there fighting the good fight. Must really make you feel confident in your position!
 

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
I don't think impeachment is realistic, but in Brazil, 60% of the Senate that impeached Dilma, were either under investigation for corruption or already found guilty of it.

So, it's not the most improbable thing that could happen.

I'm seeing fervent negative reactions against Peña even from diehard supporters of the PRI, the ruling party. This might very well collapse the limited support he has in Congress and around the country.
I hope you are right, especially with how PRI managed to get dicked in the last general election. At least I am confident an opposition candidate will win in two years. Better than nothing.
 
To illustrate my point:

CrJOs2DUEAEjw3h.jpg:large

I mean, yes, but also, we haven't had an election to test these polls yet and historically -- historically -- polling vastly overstates 3rd party numbers. The 3rd party numbers could be higher than previous years, but polling could also be overstating them. Both of those things can be true.
 

TheOfficeMut

Unconfirmed Member
You mother fucker, Nieto. I'm especially upset at your stupid ass. Not only are you the Mexican President and should have defended your own country on fucking stage, but you reaffirmed Trump on stage as to him building a wall with Mexico's money, when you know damn well it's coming out of the US citizen's taxes instead. You fucked people in two countries, you mother fucker.
 

pigeon

Banned
I mean, yes, but also, we haven't had an election to test these polls yet and historically -- historically -- polling vastly overstates 3rd party numbers. The 3rd party numbers could be higher than previous years, but polling could also be overstating them. Both of those things can be true.

I mean, that's the strong suggestion of that graph. We might reasonably expect to see a 6-point drop in third party voting, starting approximately now.
 

Joeytj

Banned
I hope you are right, especially with how PRI managed to get dicked in the last general election. At least I am confident an opposition candidate will win in two years. Better than nothing.

The PRI keeps winning because the opposition is hopelessly divided. A candidate hasn't won the Mexican Presidency with more than 50% of the vote since Carlos Salinas, when there were barely any fair elections at all. After that, the vote share for each winning candidate has dropped to the paltry 33% and 35% won by Calderon and Peña Nieto respectively, and Congress isn't any better.

That's why the PAN/PRD coalitions are so effective and why Americans like to stick with their two-party system. Unless you have a parliamentary system (and even then, there's gridlock), multi-party presidential democracies usually end in gridlock unless they have a stable unified society. Mexico doesn't, despite what Americans or the rest of the world think about us.

We're a very multicultural and divided society, along class and racial lines, but also geography. The North, Mexico City, South and the Maya regions have huge differences between them.
 

Joeytj

Banned
Why the fuck didn't he say that during the press conference?

Because they agree to not refute or debate each other beforehand, duh.

And Trump probably guessed, correctly, that Peña is a wimp and wouldn't contradict him and Peña, again underestimate Trump's craziness.

He's a real American Putin all right.
 

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
The PRI keeps winning because the opposition is hopelessly divided. A candidate hasn't won the Mexican Presidency with more than 50% of the vote since Carlos Salinas, when there were barely any fair elections at all. After that, the vote share for each winning candidate has dropped to the paltry 33% and 35% won by Calderon and Peña Nieto respectively, and Congress isn't any better.

That's why the PAN/PRD coalitions are so effective and why Americans like to stick with their two-party system. Unless you have a parliamentary system (and even then, there's gridlock), multi-party presidential democracies usually end in gridlock.
A lesson for all our "vote third party" enthusiasts in here
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
And he would never do that. :jnc

I was joking, if you didn't happen to pick that up.

Yup, it's just you and cartoon soldier out there fighting the good fight. Must really make you feel confident in your position!

I've been confident in my position since I was the first one on here to declare Trump would win the primary. I hold that victory high and will continue to do so.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I was joking, if you didn't happen to pick that up.



I've been confident in my position since I was the first one on here to declare Trump would win the primary. I hold that victory high and will continue to do so.

you have the tendency to worry too much. Take a chill before you hyperventilate by the first debate.
 

Joeytj

Banned
A lesson for all our "vote third party" enthusiasts in here

It also kind of proves that the PRI neutered most of Mexican political culture during its 71 years of rule, and that Mexicans can't really agree on something without a strong leader in the country.

We are, indeed, both very susceptible to dictatorships but also very suspicious of power because of our history as a colony and with dictators.
 
I was joking, if you didn't happen to pick that up.



I've been confident in my position since I was the first one on here to declare Trump would win the primary. I hold that victory high and will continue to do so.

just because you win the primary doesn't mean you're going to win the GE
 
Nieto basically destroyed any good coverage Trump was about to get.

Again, I don't think this will matter one way or another, but the whole "he didn't shit himself" narrative is now going to become "war of words, did they discuss wall or not?" hot takes.

And Trump is stupid enough to make things worse but we'll see.

I was joking, if you didn't happen to pick that up.



I've been confident in my position since I was the first one on here to declare Trump would win the primary. I hold that victory high and will continue to do so.

Counterpoint: you argued with me that Ben Carson could win it all.

So, yeah.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
you have the tendency to worry too much. Take a chill before you hyperventilate by the first debate.

I really think many people on here need to look up the word "worry." Stating that things are happening doesn't necessarily mean I am "worrying." You have the tendency to respond "OH MAN STOP DIABLOSING" when people try and be reasonable about things that aren't in Hillary's favor (e.g., the possibility of the race tightening, the possibility that she wasn't a likeable candidate, etc.).

just because you win the primary doesn't mean you're going to win the GE

What? Who thinks Trump is winning the GE?

Black Mamba said:
Counterpoint: you argued with me that Ben Carson could win it all.

So, yeah.

I actually initially/mainly argued that he'd be considered for a VP position, which he eventually was. He could have been a great presidential candidate if the crazy wasn't there. Smart guy, minority, overall kind person, beloved by the general public. He had a shot if he never spoke. To be fair, at that point, he hadn't spoken publicly enough to let people know he was a savant in the area of neurosurgery and completely ridiculous in every other area. Before this election cycle, he came off just like every other republican or far-right politician/figurehead. When the floodgates opened, though...wow. That was incredible. Yet, amazingly, still not the weirdest thing that happened in this election.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Didn't you sing Walker's tune as the nominee at one point or was that PD?

Oh that was PD. I stated right before the primaries that Walker would melt the moment he hit the spotlight because he literally never directly answered questions. He'd dance around every single thing. A couple years ago I thought he might have had a shot, but once the primaries approached it was obvious it wasn't happening.
 
The PRI keeps winning because the opposition is hopelessly divided. A candidate hasn't won the Mexican Presidency with more than 50% of the vote since Carlos Salinas, when there were barely any fair elections at all. After that, the vote share for each winning candidate has dropped to the paltry 33% and 35% won by Calderon and Peña Nieto respectively, and Congress isn't any better.

That's why the PAN/PRD coalitions are so effective and why Americans like to stick with their two-party system. Unless you have a parliamentary system (and even then, there's gridlock), multi-party presidential democracies usually end in gridlock unless they have a stable unified society. Mexico doesn't, despite what Americans or the rest of the world think about us.

We're a very multicultural and divided society, along class and racial lines, but also geography. The North, Mexico City, South and the Maya regions have huge differences between them.

Nah. The PRI wins because they have an electoral machinery extremely well organized in rural areas where your job depends on your party of choosing winning. This is also a problem with the PRD and PAN, but not so much. The PRI has never won an election because of ideological grounds. They are ideologically devoided in their presentation, unlike the PAN and PRD.

The PRI is dead. The only reason they won 2012 was due to hopes and nostalgia of a strong, authoritarian state that would be able to calm down the cartel violence. With the current administration not being able to reach such goal, the PRI has become effectively irrelevant in presidential elections.

Which makes me wonder even more what the fuck were they thinking when they allowed Peña to have this reunion with Trump. Calderon or Andres Manuel WOULD NEVER.


A lesson for all our "vote third party" enthusiasts in here

I disagree. Morena was born three years ago as a party. And now they are leading most presidential polls thanks to AMLO. If anything, this should be an example to third parties in the US: You need a strong leader first (like Bernie hihi)
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Trump toning down the rhetoric and it being reflected in the polls is a little scary.

Trump hasn't actually gained. Hillary has lost a point or two.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I knew it! Reid is starting to send signals.

A Democratic Senate Might Need to Curtail Filibuster, Harry Reid Says

Senator Harry Reid says Democrats should move to curtail the filibuster if they win the White House and Senate in November only to run up against persistent use of the tactic by Republicans.

“Unless after this election there is a dramatic change to go back to the way it used to be, the Senate will have to evolve as it has in the past,” Mr. Reid told me, referring to a former tradition of rarely mounting filibusters. “But it will evolve with a majority vote determining stuff. It is going to happen.”

Supreme Court nominations represent their own challenges. Some Democrats in the Senate, particularly women, have been very reluctant to lose the ability to use the filibuster to block an objectionable nominee seen as a major threat to abortion rights. That was one reason nominations to the court were not included in the 2013 changes. But should Republicans decide to block a Supreme Court nominee early in a Clinton administration after refusing this year to take up the nomination of Merrick B. Garland, Democrats could be spurred to take extraordinary action.

Mr. Reid said he hoped things didn’t reach that point and encouraged Republicans, should Democrats prevail, to be more open to a working partnership.

“I hope that Republicans, after this election, come back and say, ‘We are not going to use this very much’,” Mr. Reid said.

If not, though, “The Senate is going to have to wind up being a democracy,” he said. And that means, the majority — not 60 votes — would rule.
 

Joeytj

Banned
Nah. The PRI wins because they have an electoral machinery extremely well organized in rural areas where your job depends on your party of choosing winning. This is also a problem with the PRD and PAN, but not so much. The PRI has never won an election because of ideological grounds. They are ideologically devoided in their presentation, unlike the PAN and PRD.

The PRI is dead. The only reason they won 2012 was due to hopes and nostalgia of a strong, authoritarian state that would be able to calm down the cartel violence. With the current administration not being able to reach such goal, the PRI has become effectively irrelevant in presidential elections.

Which makes me wonder even more what the fuck were they thinking when they allowed Peña to have this reunion with Trump. Calderon or Andres Manuel WOULD NEVER.

It doesn't matter why the people who vote for them do it. I agree that the PRI still has a functioning political machine in large parts of the country that helps them win CLOSE elections amongst a divided field.

But it's clear that, for years now, the PRI doesn't have a majority of the people behind them, not even close. But they keep winning thanks to "el voto duro", the "hard vote" in rural areas and its political machinery.

Although, you are also correct that things are changing. The last elections here in my state (Baja California) and others, proved that even the PRI's loyal vote is crumbling and no longer enough.

The PAN in Baja managed to peel away enough of the PRI's traditional voters (taxi unions and rural voters) with dubious campaign promises to win in a crowded field of up to 12 candidates, including independents.

EDIT: And, as far as MORENA and other new parties go... Look. Even before Morena, there have been plenty of parties like it that pop up every "sexenio" or presidential election, but things haven't changed because even MORENA prefers activism politics and purism instead of forming winning coalitions.

Again look at what the PRI managed to do in Mexico City's Legislative Assembly. They gained power because MORENA's refusal to accept more seats in the Assembly based on the proportional representation rule. Because of some crazy notion that these are anti-democratic, they didn't get enough seats to form a majority and now the Assembly is divided between three parties, even if two (the PRD and MORENA) share 95% of the same policy principles.
 

Bowdz

Member

I'm super glad to hear this. Until we have two sane parties again, the filibuster is simply used as a tool by the minority to deny legitimacy of the democratically elected majority. If the GOP was actually interested in good faith negotiations, then the filibuster would make sense, but they have proven over the past eight years that they simply oppose anything the Democrats support, and that simply isn't conducive to good governance.
 
If trump can ever consistently get out of the low 40s I'll start to diablos.

I'm worried him not catering might hurt the chances of the Senate though
 
I think if Clinton wins with like 52+% of the vote, then it'll be OK. But if she wins the election 45/42/12/1 (Clinton / Trump / Johnson / Stein) - then the GOP is going to be able to make a faux-legitimate argument that the country did not want her to actually be president, and just chose her to stop Trump from being elected (and they will quickly disavow Trump). Then they run on an Anti-Clinton campaign in 2018 and take over the Senate & House (if they haven't already), and prep for 2020. I'm not sure the US can handle 4 more years of gridlock with the infrastructure falling apart the way it is.

Congress is still directly elected; gerrymandering or not. Leave it this way - imagine if W had replaced Ginsburg in 2007, and this election you have the Dems take the House and the Senate and the presidency, but be unable to pass anything because a conservative SCOTUS chosen 10 years ago is going to block anything remotely progressive. Progressives are all on board with SCOTUS having power because we've had the presidency for 8 years, and we are on pace to tilt it towards us for a good 20 years assuming Clinton wins. We want it tilted for us so that even if a clear majority of Americans want different policies than we do, it wouldn't matter.

Yeah, that's a freaking problem.

As someone else stated, Obama got that mandate (in 08 especially) and got blasted by obstruction. I know you don't think this, but I'm still going to say it: racism is why Obama got hit harder than any white Democrat would have. Hell, if his name wasn't so ethnic he might've done better with the GOP. But the Right in this country simply doesn't view Obama as an American. That was painfully obvious when the Birther shit was going on (and still is; anyone wanna ask PPP to add a "Do you believe Obama was born in the US?" question to a national poll? I bet it's higher than you'd think!).

To the Right, the only legitimate Americans are white. Sure, some of them are dirty Democrats like Biden, but "even when they're saying stupid shit, they still think they're helping the country" (to quote some family members and coworkers). Hillary will get some stuff through in negotiations, and the GOP will likely not let her take credit. That's fine since I don't think she cares about the glory of it (and neither do I).

As for the Court, your hypothetical already exists! It's called the last 30 years. And I was pretty much fine with it. Sure, you lose some cases that you wanted to win, but I've never taken the (honestly a little crazy) stance that you have that seems to argue that the Court is just illegitimate. I mean, there's generally a reason that we have a judicial branch in the first place, and it's to curb the insanity of the majority. Sometimes, that means the left-wing position isn't cool. And that's okay. Rational people can step back and accept that they aren't running a dictatorship (even a dictatorship of the masses).

As an aside, my point about Congress wasn't specifically talking about gerrymandering, but the fact that numerically your vote doesn't really count. I'm on board the "Everyone should vote" train, but the idea that you actually have any real say over who's in Congress just isn't true; you get about 1/(voting populace) of say, which isn't much in a country as large as ours. In that way, more people should vote locally since their vote is worth more there than it is for things like the Presidency, or even a Senate/House race.

I think that theory will be put to the test.

Cybit mentioned the gamesmanship going on here, and I think that might help Johnson a bit (trying to get him to 15% for the debates). After he fails to hit that mark, it'll fade. And Stein doesn't even have that going for her, so her support is going to flatline hard. This 3rd party bump is almost entirely just fueled by Johnson.


Good. This is another tool Hillary has to break the obstruction in Congress. With 2 branches of gov't, she can really start pushing in ways that Obama couldn't. GOP leadership (Ryan at least, judging by that compromise bill he's got going) will recognize that if you continue to act in bad faith, other groups can then tune you out completely. Wouldn't you rather get a slightly left-wing bill passed with bipartisan support and a spot at the table instead of a radically left-wing bill passed by Dems and no spot whatsoever to even see the thing before it hits the floor?

Because technically, if they kill this filibuster, the literal only roadblock for the Dems would be finding a few Judas types in the House (I think the Dems pick up seats, but I don't think they take it). Only a few crossovers from some Larry Hogan Republicans to get a bill through the House, then ram it past the Senate GOP (regardless of their objections), then sign it and move on. If it's challenged, you likely have the Court (since smashing the filibuster would invariably let Hillary nominate the 9th Justice).

The GOP can either join the press events in a show of bipartisan leadership or they can get trashed nationally by Hillary during the same events. It's a pretty clear choice for them. The only holdouts will be GOP folks in Trump country (who will fear being primaried), but what does it matter? You only need a few in the House. You don't need the organization itself, so who cares what the majority of Republicans are yelling. They could be advocating the execution of Clinton on the House floor, but as long as a few GOPers keep breaking rank (from safe districts, maybe some old incumbents), it's all cool.
 
My girlfriend has the worst coworker in the world, omg.

He was scheduled to give a presentation at 5:45, then never showed up and never called to say he was late so she had to give the presentation even though she hadn't prepared at all.

And then didn't apologize much afterward for showing up late.

Just a prick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom