• 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 |OT12| The last days of the Republic

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vahagn

Member
This is nothing like 2008. 2008 was a repudiation of GWB's handing of Iraq and an economy crashing.

The GOP wasn't at civil war with itself. The GOP understood why it lost. It was an election they would have been destroyed in no matter anything they did.

This is much, much different. This is them imploding in a winnable election cycle. This is them imploding with a stacked deck. This is a huge chunk of their own party members either not voting down ballot or at the top of the ticket. This is them losing a generation of latinos and suburban women.

2008 is nothing like this.

I disagree. This isn't a winnable election. We're not living in a recession with a horribly unpopular President. All of their candidates were different version of white plywood or crazy.

Anyone on earth would be massively unpopular because of the fragmentation/polarization of the political discourse right now. These unpopularity numbers are a result of Breitbart/Fox/Drudge and more or less irrelevant.

This anger and venomous bile that's coming from that side isn't going to subside when he loses. They're going to keep mobilizing. Only Donald Trump can destroy that party by insisting that it break apart after the loss. if he tells them to consolidate they will, because they're mindless Nazi's. And the GOP has shown they've been able to mobilize movements (Gingrich Revolution / Tea Party) in off years to win landslides.
 

CygnusXS

will gain confidence one day
Lol, people defending the "deplorable" comment when you were calling it a major mistake that day.

Hillary's always one step ahead. Unless she falls down.

"Half" and "irredeemable" were the problem parts, and that was obvious on day 1.
 

rjinaz

Member
Lol, people defending the "deplorable" comment when you were calling it a major mistake that day.

Hillary's always one step ahead. Unless she falls down.

Disagree with its use, agree with the content.

I don't think she should have said it because it ended up being fuel for the Trumpers but she absolutely was right so I would defend it.
 

Joeytj

Banned
If the GOP fractures, does it seem likely that the deplorables could cohere into a single party? Or would we see multiple parties spring up, clashing with each other?

I think they could form one, although like the "Bernie Revolution", I suspect a lot of them are just in it for Trump, not so much because of his politics. It's just what he represents and who he is, sprinkled with a bit of white nationalism, protectionism and that's it. I don't think it's enough to form a party.

Either moderate Republicans leave the party of the deplorables do, but the current makeup of the party won't last.

Unless they both REALLY hate Hillary and forget about Trump as soon as he loses, uniting against her until 2020 comes along.
 
I disagree. This isn't a winnable election. We're not living in a recession with a horribly unpopular President. All of their candidates were different version of white plywood or crazy.

Anyone on earth would be massively unpopular because of the fragmentation/polarization of the political discourse right now. These unpopularity numbers are a result of Breitbart/Fox/Drudge and more or less irrelevant.

This anger and venomous bile that's coming from that side isn't going to subside when he loses. They're going to keep mobilizing. Only Donald Trump can destroy that party by insisting that it break apart after the loss. if he tells them to consolidate they will, because they're mindless Nazi's. And the GOP has shown they've been able to mobilize movements (Gingrich Revolution / Tea Party) in off years to win landslides.

If you don't think Kasich would have had a good shot at winning this election (or at the very least keep the Senate and House), I don't see what there is to discuss.
 

thebloo

Member
If you don't think Kasich would have had a good shot at winning this election (or at the very least keep the Senate and House), I don't see what there is to discuss.

I don't think Kasich is a winner. But even the biggest Hillary supporter would admit it would be close.
 
If you don't think Kasich would have had a good shot at winning this election (or at the very least keep the Senate and House), I don't see what there is to discuss.

a better shot than Trump has, but that's literally anyone. Nancy Pelosi running on the R ticket would be getting more republican votes than Trump right now. This is a disaster.

I can see Kasich doing Romney numbers- maybe even give him ohio- but that's not going to be enough when demographics have been unfavorable for the party as a whole and gotten worse since 2012.

He would have had to contend with being badly outmatched on funding and ground game, just as Trump is- and wouldn't have had the benefit of all the "Free Media" coverage Trump gets to offset that.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Anything been said about the RNC call yet?

15 minutes until it starts - probably about an hour before we hear anything.

hpXoxkI.png

Dear USA,

We refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971)

Sincerely
U(still, just)K
 

thefro

Member
Got a fun piece of info I'll share in the discord around 9 PM EST.

Not anything worth waiting on, but a fun insight into the race.
 

Wilsongt

Member
One candidate is clearly qualified to be president while one is a vomiting rotting tangerine who likes to grab them by the pussy

Please millenials, do go on about how both choices are horrible and that we are fucked either way.
 

kevin1025

Banned
Trump said in his rally, "ICE is, these are great people."

Someone will make an ad out of context, I can see it now! "ISIS, these are great people."
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
No, the only real problem with Deplorables is that she was using a ephemistic catch-all for racists, xenophobic, sexist, bigoted simpletons. By dancing around it she gave him room to imply that she was talking about all conservatives. This is the same problem Obama had with his guns-n-religion quote where he was clearly right but not specific enough.

Stop the euphemisms. It will burn you every time.
 
This would assume he could get out of the primary, which he only won Ohio in.

Yes, I agree. He couldn't get out of the primary. But that's irrelevant to my point (or even enhances it when you think about it)

The GOP could have easily put up someone who could have defeated Hillary.

Look at Hillary's unfavorables. Look, I think Hillary is a great candidate for President but most Americans do not. They do not understand things like we do; they are not politically well-versed.

The Obama coalition is holding strong because they really hate Trump. But many groups are not voting for her as they did for Obama.

And someone like Kasich could have changed the race by a lot. I'm not saying he wins; I'm saying it would most certainly be close and he'd have a very good shot.

Yes, Obama is popular and things are going much better but the American electorate, as a whole, is pretty stupid and reacts weirdly to things. Al Gore losing in 2000 is proof enough (and I don't care how bad a campaign he ran, the race shouldn't have been close).

a better shot than Trump has, but that's literally anyone. Nancy Pelosi running on the R ticket would be getting more republican votes than Trump right now. This is a disaster.

I can see Kasich doing Romney numbers- maybe even give him ohio- but that's not going to be enough when demographics have been unfavorable for the party as a whole and gotten worse since 2012.

He would have had to contend with being badly outmatched on funding and ground game, just as Trump is- and wouldn't have had the benefit of all the "Free Media" coverage Trump gets to offset that.

Without Trump, this election wouldn't have been about the demographics as much as the turnout.

And I am thoroughly convinced without a Trump/Cruz type candidate, turnout for Hillary would have been a problem.
 

Cyanity

Banned
I think they could form one, although like the "Bernie Revolution", I suspect a lot of them are just in it for Trump, not so much because of his politics. It's just what he represents and who he is, sprinkled with a bit of white nationalism, protectionism and that's it. I don't think it's enough to form a party.

Either moderate Republicans leave the party of the deplorables do, but the current makeup of the party won't last.

Unless they both REALLY hate Hillary and forget about Trump as soon as he loses, uniting against her until 2020 comes along.


Call me naive, but I have a feeling some of the high profile GOP members who have grown sick of Trump over the past year might actually be willing to work with Clinton, since she's actually...y'know...sane?
 
This would assume he could get out of the primary, which he only won Ohio in.

No, the fact that he couldn't get out is the point. The GOP took a year where they had a chance to end it with complete control over the federal government and threw it down the drain because of how they've cultivated an insane base.
 

Vahagn

Member
If you don't think Kasich would have had a good shot at winning this election (or at the very least keep the Senate and House), I don't see what there is to discuss.

Sure he would, but he had no chance of passing the primary even without Trump. He didn't win a single state besides Ohio and he wouldn't have gotten the trump voters. Those people would have went for Cruz.

I mean, Jon Huntsman might have won 2012 too, that doesn't make 2012 a "winnable" election in any really meaningful way.
 
One candidate is clearly qualified to be president while one is a vomiting rotting tangerine who likes to grab them by the pussy

Please millenials, do go on about how both choices are horrible and that we are fucked either way.

OK MSNBC at one of the watch parties with undecided millennials one girl basically says it's like chosing the best of the worst or something to that affect. Girl next her shut that shit down immediately saying it's not even close, that if you do any looking Hillary is the way better candidate that, while she wishes it was Bernie, she's voting for Hillary. First girl looked thrown off for having her bullshit logic shutdown.
 
Yes, I agree. He couldn't get out of the primary. But that's irrelevant to my point.

The GOP could have easily put up someone who could have defeated Hillary.
.

No, they couldn't. Because the GOP's base (as we're seeing now) consists of a LOT of bigots, a LOT of racists, a LOT of single issue voting evangelicals that demand party purity or they revolt.

This has been a problem for a VERY long time.

You want to "put up someone who could have defeated hillary" then they need to get past the primary- and the primary has been hijacked by tea partier types, racists, and evangelicals. Even candidates like Romney end up being forced hard right and have to scramble back to the center, disavowing things they said during the primary- after draining tons of funds on what should be an easy primary.

you can't simply dismiss this and pretend the GOP can just stick a fantasy candidate the establishment likes in the general.
 
Sure he would, but he had no chance of passing the primary even without Trump. He didn't win a single state besides Ohio and he wouldn't have gotten the trump voters. Those people would have went for Cruz.

I mean, Jon Huntsman might have won 2012 too, that doesn't make 2012 a "winnable" election in any really meaningful way.

2012 wasn't winnable because the Obama coalition was still 95% there AND the American electorate wasn't going to turn on Obama so soon especially with the GOP so negative all 4 years.

Huntsman would have lost by the same margin as Romney.

This isn't the same thing. Hillary would NOT have the full Obama coalition without Trump. The passion is not behind her. Americans like the idea of changing things up, too.

The non-polling fundamentals favored the GOP slightly this election with Hillary on the ticket.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Trump confirmed gay?

Trump confirmed horny as hell.

No what you're witnessing here is the eventual conclusion of what social media and the internet does to a society.

I'm starting to believe this more and more.

"Unreason and anti-intellectualism abominate thought. Thinking implies disagreement; and disagreement implies nonconformity; and nonconformity implies heresy; and heresy implies disloyalty — so, obviously, thinking must be stopped. But shouting is not a substitute for thinking and reason is not the subversion but the salvation of freedom."

Where is this from?

So, it's been well known I've been on record saying the GOP was going to have a reformation in 2020, basically some kind of civil war, or they would face irrelevance.

Looks like I was wrong. Trump is accelerating that by 4 years.

I hope to god this continues. I never thought it could get like this.

A complete decimation of the GOP in this election is possible. If the Dems somehow capture the House and the GOP is lost...it doesn't matter who they blame.

The country needs the GOP to lose badly in this election. Across the board. We need a functioning gov't again. We need a GOP that is willing to come to the bargaining table....

I think the pendulum will swing back to a Romney type in 2020, as I think 2016 is a pendulum swing from 2012 (where the moderate didn't win), so they went with the extreme option (Trump and Cruz being second) in 2016, while as in 2020 I think 4 years of Clinton will motivate many of the Trump supporters to hold their nose and go for a "moderate" pick, just as Clinton 2016 was motivating many moderate Republicans to hold their nose and vote for Trump (until recently).

God I hope so. But 2008 was a massive landslide and I don't see this year being more than that. I mean, maybe in the EC numbers, but not nationwide in the House/Senate and local races.

It took the GOP 2 years to come back with a vengeance. Don't underestimate the fickleness of the American Voter.

Sadly true. I would expect a massive mid-term swing towards the GOP in 2018, like 2010 wave level.

If you don't think Kasich would have had a good shot at winning this election (or at the very least keep the Senate and House), I don't see what there is to discuss.

The leaked Podesta emails even have several emails from him basically begging for the GOP to nominate Trump, as they thought even Cruz had a 50/50 chance of beating Clinton. If Kasich were ten years younger, he would be set to take on (and probably beat badly) Clinton in 2020. Hell, I think Kasich is beating her now to be honest in an election.

(I think Kasich, Romney, and the Bushes are the only Republicans that come out looking good from all of this)

Hell, to further go along Mamba's point - even WITH TRUMP, Clinton was getting struggling heavily in turnout until recently. (see LV screens / numbers)
 
No, they couldn't. Because the GOP's base (as we're seeing now) consists of a LOT of bigots, a LOT of racists, a LOT of single issue voting evangelicals that demand party purity or they revolt.

This has been a problem for a VERY long time.

You want to "put up someone who could have defeated hillary" then they need to get past the primary- and the primary has been hijacked by tea partier types, racists, and evangelicals. Even candidates like Romney end up being forced hard right and have to scramble back to the center, disavowing things they said during the primary- after draining tons of funds on what should be an easy primary.

you can't simply dismiss this and pretend the GOP can just stick a fantasy candidate the establishment likes in the general.

Maybe we're talking over each other.


When I say the GOP is losing a winnable election, I mean to say they are putting up a candidate that will lose in an election where the fundamentals were not against them (such as in 2012 or 2008).

The reason they are losing a winnable election is because their base has become so much of what you described and has made a winning election into an unwinnable election for them.

So you are correct to say the election isn't winnable because they can't elect a winnable candidate. My point is before bringing in those things, the election is winnable.

In 2008 they could have nominated Jesus and he'd have lost. Not so this time.
 
2012 wasn't winnable because the Obama coalition was still 95% there AND the American electorate wasn't going to turn on Obama so soon especially with the GOP so negative all 4 years.

Huntsman would have lost by the same margin as Romney.

This isn't the same thing. Hillary would NOT have the full Obama coalition without Trump. The passion is not behind her. Americans like the idea of changing things up, too.

The non-polling fundamentals favored the GOP slightly this election with Hillary on the ticket.

I think you're underestimating how much danger Obama was in four years ago. Before Sandy hit he was probably on track to win by 2 to 2.5 points. A Republican candidate not bogged down with Romney's history on immigration and the 47% stuff could definetly have made that up. Obama had to run a great campaign, get some luck, and have Romney hurt himself in key areas to even get a 3.5% win.
 

Syncytia

Member
Where is this from?

My bad. It's Adlai Stevenson.

You might recognize the more popular/recent version by Isaac Asimov

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

No, the only real problem with Deplorables is that she was using a ephemistic catch-all for racists, xenophobic, sexist, bigoted simpletons. By dancing around it she gave him room to imply that she was talking about all conservatives. This is the same problem Obama had with his guns-n-religion quote where he was clearly right but not specific enough.

Stop the euphemisms. It will burn you every time.

This is exactly it. Even if Trump supporters recognize that there are racist and sexist and bigoted supporters among them, it's too easy for them to say "That's not me, and I find it offensive she says that." MSNBC has a woman on a few minutes ago that was saying just that. "I'm not deplorable because I disagree with Hillary Clinton, and think that we need stronger immigration and stronger law enforcement etc"
 
I think the pendulum will swing back to a Romney type in 2020, as I think 2016 is a pendulum swing from 2012 (where the moderate didn't win), so they went with the extreme option (Trump and Cruz being second) in 2016, while as in 2020 I think 4 years of Clinton will motivate many of the Trump supporters to hold their nose and go for a "moderate" pick, just as Clinton 2016 was motivating many moderate Republicans to hold their nose and vote for Trump (until recently).

It will all depend how they go about this. But I think it's weird to think about 2020 because, assuming you don't put up a piece of shit like Trump, most of what matters is the economy and some foreign policy and that's way too far out to project right now.

If somehow the Dems capture the House this election, things could be very good for her in 2020.
 

Iolo

Member
The leaked Podesta emails even have several emails from him basically begging for the GOP to nominate Trump, as they thought even Cruz had a 50/50 chance of beating Clinton.

Weren't those emails from a Bernie supporter to Podesta?
 
I wonder how morning joe will spin their own poll tomorrow. I can understand watching that shit to laugh at them but why the hell do people take that terrible show seriously and value any of their opinions is beyond me.

They'll cherry pick some polls that have them close and jerk themselves off about how it was premature to count Trump out.
 

Joeytj

Banned
Call me naive, but I have a feeling some of the high profile GOP members who have grown sick of Trump over the past year might actually be willing to work with Clinton, since she's actually...y'know...sane?

It's not that naive. First, losing three elections in a row force them to admit they can't just keep a Democratic president from getting legislation passed and hope the next elections turns their way, especially after Trump.

And even Steve King from Iowa admitted off the cuff that he could work with Hillary.

Although, yeah, all this might be a tad naive...
 

Corto

Member
Trump kept calling it WikiLinks.

He also said, and I quote: "she blamed Honest Abe Inkin!"

Either he can't read (which he has said in the past), or someone broke his teleprompter and Ron Burgundy'd it.

Don't forget the nuclear. Russia has the best nuclear, more modern nuclear. And cyber of course.
 
I think the pendulum will swing back to a Romney type in 2020, as I think 2016 is a pendulum swing from 2012 (where the moderate didn't win), so they went with the extreme option (Trump and Cruz being second) in 2016, while as in 2020 I think 4 years of Clinton will motivate many of the Trump supporters to hold their nose and go for a "moderate" pick, just as Clinton 2016 was motivating many moderate Republicans to hold their nose and vote for Trump (until recently).

Describing Romney as the 'moderate' is pretty misleading since he basically won the nomination by attacking Perry on immigration from the right. Even Romney knew that he had to throw the base a huge bone that hurt him badly in the general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom