• 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 |OT16| Unpresidented

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
I don't see Obama ever approving something like this. He is way too concerned with how history is going to judge him to pull a stunt like that.

Biden on the other hand.....I mean, you don't need Obama to do anything himself in this scenario; the only person you actually need onboard is Biden.

As far as actually pulling off such a thing I have a really hard time believing it works as advertised. Surely there is some way for Republicans to prevent it or block it. Such a scenario which would just leave the Democrats looking really bad but with nothing to show for it.
Now if you could safely assume that it would be successful, hell yeah, go for it. It's not a good thing to do but it's even worse to normalize what the Republicans did. Otherwise the new tradition is that Supreme Court vacancies are only filled if a majority of the Senate is of the same party as the sitting President.
 
R

royalan

Member
Maengun1 said:
This thing of "Trump's trying to ~*DISTRACT*~ us!! Don't fall for it!!" every time he says/tweets anything has already become a huge peeve of mine. I get that people still don't know how to handle this all (me included) but still.

For one thing, I don't and never will buy that he or his team actually plan anything, so I really don't think it's worth it to search for strategy.

He does 50 different terrible things a day, and he's not even in power yet. We have to be able to register it all, as shitty as it is. Yes his cabinet appointments suck, everything he does as pres will suck, but I don't think anyone should brush off things like multiple random twitter attacks on China in a day or demanding that SNL not make fun of him (or that Hamilton actors should not even address his administration) as distractions. That stuff is all also news and really scary!
Click to expand...

I disagree that Trump's team doesn't plan. Not with the people he's surrounded himself with. Bannon is definitely planning, if nobody else. Whoever suggested he call Taiwan is planning, if nothing else.

But that's beside the point. I really hate the idea that every time Trump lashes out on social media should be treated as breaking news. Whether it's an intentional scheme to distract the media or not, it honestly doesn't matter. The result is the same. And I'm sorry, but at some point Donald Trump attacking someone on Twitter needs to stop being news. It's Donald Trump, it's what he does. The man attacked the Pope for crying out loud. He will never NOT attack someone or something on Twitter.

Water is wet, the sky is blue, my ex is trash, and Donald Trump just attacked somebody on Twitter. This is no longer newsworthy.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Makai said:
PELOSI: I don’t think people want a new direction.
Click to expand...

Not to single you specifically out, but posting something like this without a) a source, or b) some analysis/conversation is not very useful. It should be remembered that fake news/propaganda can be Left-wing as well as Right-wing, and we should all try and take some stock of what's being said. When the fake-news cycle runs its course, with the wake-up call probably being an awful crisis (such as that Comet Ping Pong situation, but worse), people will need to promote good sources, and we can start sowing the seeds of that positivity by not buying into stupid headlines now.

Anyways... So, I Google'd this quote, and there's pages of shit sources, with the best being NYPost:

WASHINGTON — Nancy Pelosi just gave Republicans another reason for celebration.

The newly elected House minority leader insisted Sunday that Dems aren’t looking for a “new direction” even after the bruising Election Day defeats and a GOP monopoly in Washington.

A defiant — and possibly delusional — Pelosi stood firm about her party’s future when pressed on what she’ll do differently to deal with Democratic discontent.

“I don’t think people want a new direction,” Pelosi told CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Our values unify us and our values are about supporting America’s working families.”
Click to expand...

When the first page of Google results also includes Breitbart and Infowars, there's something weird going on, and people need to look deeper.

(Again, not trying to single you out, but we should all be better than this. :) )

Unrelated Edit:

Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump

DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.
Click to expand...
 
B

Balphon

Member
Oblivion said:
Why would there even be a majority of Democrats, even for a few minutes exactly?
Click to expand...

Class 3 senators (the ones who were just up for election) are largely Republican. Democrats hold a majority of the remaining seats, 34-30 (36-30 if you count King and Sanders).

The current Class 3 senators' terms expire with the current Congress, and the Senate has to actually gavel itself in once the new Congress starts to seat the new senators even if they are simply re-elected incumbents. The procedural argument beyond that point is lost on me, but apparently there's nothing actually preventing them from conducting other business before swearing in the new senators?
 
K

kirblar

Member
Balphon said:
Class 3 senators (the ones who were just up for election) are largely Republican. Democrats hold a majority of the remaining seats, 34-30 (36-30 if you count King and Sanders).

The current Class 3 senators' terms expire with the current Congress, and the Senate has to actually gavel itself in once the new Congress starts to seat the new senators even if they are simply re-elected incumbents. The procedural argument beyond that point is lost on me, but apparently there's nothing actually preventing them from conducting other business before swearing in the new senators?
Click to expand...
Yeah, sounds like that's basically it. This wouldn't matter for legislation cause you need the House, but for confirmation? Just the Senate.
Brawndo Addict said:
I don't see Obama ever approving something like this. He is way too concerned with how history is going to judge him to pull a stunt like that.

Biden on the other hand.....I mean, you don't need Obama to do anything himself in this scenario; the only person you actually need onboard is Biden.

As far as actually pulling off such a thing I have a really hard time believing it works as advertised. Surely there is some way for Republicans to prevent it or block it. Such a scenario which would just leave the Democrats looking really bad but with nothing to show for it.
Now if you could safely assume that it would be successful, hell yeah, go for it. It's not a good thing to do but it's even worse to normalize what the Republicans did. Otherwise the new tradition is that Supreme Court vacancies are only filled if a majority of the Senate is of the same party as the sitting President.
Click to expand...
You have Trump incoming, barring the Electoral College actually doing its job. You need to do it.

Also, if Ginsburg is willing to step down, you can go a step further. Nominate two, get em both through, then have Ginsburg resign. But...I suspect she wouldn't be down for that.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Pixieking said:
Not to single you specifically out, but posting something like this without a) a source, or b) some analysis/conversation is not very useful. It should be remembered that fake news/propaganda can be Left-wing as well as Right-wing, and we should all try and take some stock of what's being said. When the fake-news cycle runs its course, with the wake-up call probably being an awful crisis (such as that Comet Ping Pong situation, but worse), people will need to promote good sources, and we can start sowing the seeds of that positivity by not buying into stupid headlines now.

Anyways... So, I Google'd this quote, and there's pages of shit sources, with the best being NYPost:

When the first page of Google results also includes Breitbart and Infowars, there's something weird going on, and people need to look deeper.

(Again, not trying to single you out, but we should all be better than this. :) )
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the best source in this case be, just to choose a weekly news show at random off the top of my head, CBS's Face the Nation, say, circa the 3:09 mark?
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Wouldn't the best source in this case be, just to choose a weekly news show at random off the top of my head, CBS's Face the Nation, say, circa the 3:09 mark?
Click to expand...

Hah, yes it would. :D In my defense, though: a) I have a bandwidth cap, so I tend towards print articles over video and b) Youtube and American news websites occasionally block videos via GeoIP. In this case, the Face The Nation video doesn't actually play for me in my present location (Jordan), and may not play for other PoliGAF'ers in non-American locales.

:)
 
C

Chumley

Banned
Dominican Power said:
He said people that are doing poorly economically is the reason why Trump got economically.
Click to expand...

This shit isn't going to stop as long as liberals keep deluding themselves that they're scoring points with the right by being empathetic. Nothing will teach people like Van Jones that they at best don't care and at worst are outright laughing at him. He is who he is and I respect him a hell of a lot, but the time for nuanced compassionate discussion is over and the time for hardline Malcolm X shit is now. We have to destroy these people in debates, now allow them a "common ground" that normalizes them and allows them to win.
 
C

Chumley

Banned
Sibylus said:
I've nothing but derision for genteel, polite politics in the year fascism won.
Click to expand...

Yep.

30091938_chamberlainlarge.jpg
 
R

Ryuuroden

Member
Dominican Power said:
He said people that are doing poorly economically is the reason why Trump got economically.
Click to expand...

To be fair, what I saw in his interview was that the reason a lot of white working class lifetime democrats (members of unions) voted for trump was he was the only one who actually talked to them, mentioned the issues they faced. These democrats did vote for Obama twice. Obama visited these towns, talked to these people when he ran. Hillary didn't. Hillary took the position that there are no democrats worth her time in rural America. This offended them, these are people who have been one of the pillers of the Democratic party for decades and they did not leave when Obama ran because he included them too in his coalition. They weren't against minorities and others as part of the party. Hillary basically told them by not even visiting their areas that they were not important. Hillary was conceited and I say this as a fan of hers. Before you say, "poor whitey, so sad" sarcastically, remember, minorities didn't support Bernie because he didn't speak to them. The majority of the electorate votes on emotions. Van Jones said yes, the majority of the trump voters were not worth talking to but there was a sizable number who would of voted for a democrat but the only person that visited them was trump. Remember, the difference in votes in wisconsin, michigan, and Pennsylvania was extremely close. Those voters did matter and they were not asking for Hillary to say screw minorities. These people in interviews said trump was a sleezeball but at least he took the time to talk to them.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
She also got overconfident and had her eyes set on locking down Georgia, Arizona and NC as new blue states, because she assumed the "blue wall" in the mid west was safe.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
She also got overconfident and had her eyes set on locking down Georgia, Arizona and NC as new blue states, because she assumed the "blue wall" in the mid west was safe.
Click to expand...

The polling also reflected that in many ways.

But, even RNC admits that the first time Michigan was close in their models was post Comey's first letter.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
The nice part though, is that NC, Georgia and Arizona likely will be new blue states, eventually, and at that point, we can safely put the midwest behind us.

2016 map + NC, Georgia and Arizona and that's 274. Let alone Florida inching more blue, with Texas in the wings within the next few decades. I also don't think WI, MI or PA are gone at all and we can win those again.

But I think the 2020 map is going to be... interesting to see. I expect strange developments in states as Trump ruins parts of the country.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
pigeon said:
They don't.
Click to expand...

balladofwindfishes said:
Exactly. There's no real evidence that a new direction is the winning strategy. Hillary's brand of liberalism won the popular vote with record margins in some of the most liberal states in the country.
Click to expand...

But those states also don't account for an EC majority.

Dems need new blood in the leadership. Pelosi being face of the House isn't going to help win PA or Michigan.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
But those states also don't account for an EC majority.

Dems need new blood in the leadership. Pelosi being face of the House isn't going to help win PA or Michigan.
Click to expand...

We won PA and MI twice with Pelosi as the majority leader.

Why exactly would Pelosi lose those states? What does the minority leader do that would cause those states to be lost?
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
Exactly. There's no real evidence that a new direction is the winning strategy. Hillary's brand of liberalism won the popular vote with record margins in some of the most liberal states in the country.
Click to expand...

Yup. The platform is fine. Just need a better candidate.

I maintain that Diamond Joe would have won in a landslide with the exact same platform.
 
R

royalan

Member
The Democrats don't need to burn everything down. But they do need a more charismatic breed of candidates.

And a full-time DNC chair.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
I floated this idea in the other thread but the more I think about it the more I believe Tulsi Gabbard might be a big player in 2020. I think she managed to pull off what we thought Ted Cruz was going to do with his convention speech and railing against Trump to position him self for 2020 in case Trump lost badly.

She's clearly ambitious but she bet her entire career by holding out and not falling in line with the DNC, and not backing Hillary and I believe it might pay off. Almost no one else who might be in the picture is going to be able to pull an "I told you so" like Obama did in 08 that other candidates aren't going to have much off an answer for. Being able to say she stood up to the establishment and stood against what she thought was wrong with the party is going to play really well with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire I think..

She also to me seemingly has an ability to move past sexist double standards in a similar way Obama was able to get people to look past racist double standards.. I know that we dismissed social media and YouTube or whatever as being a vocal minority but based on the election results that crowd I think is a better indicator than we give it credit for.. like look at any YouTube comments section or social media post/blog about Tulsi and compare it with Hillary. There's a clear and obvious difference there and I think she has done probably what she thought she needed to do in order to maintain street cred with voters she feels she may need in the future

And I know before anyone says it,"but she's more conservative than Hillary so progressives won't like her". If we learned anything it's that people will look past flaws and make excuses for candidates that they like and want to win. Facts don't matter as much as perception and I think she has the capability to maintain that on her side.. or at least has so far

How she'll perform with minority voters, I'm not too sure.. but even if she does poorly based on the amount of candidates that will likely run and the options that are out there it's hard for me to imagine anyone who has the ability to win minority voters by such massive margins like Obama and Hillary did. There's likely not going to be anyone in the running that has deep connections with the obama coalition and Obama (and probably Hillary too) will likely stay out of the primary and not support anyone till the dust settles like he did this time.

Now I'm just throwing this out there as a possibility for what might happen rather than something I would want. Like it's crazy risky to even consider her, and not sure if she would have the capability to mount a run that could potentially win but I think she has a lot of upside and a lot of things going for her. She's young, she's hot, she's a vet, she's got a comparable experience to Obama prior to being POTUS if not slightly more by 2020 considering her time in the military and she has set herself up well for 2020 if she actually wants to go for it and I don't think it would be crazy to somewhat prepare for her being a factor.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
We won PA and MI twice with Pelosi as the majority leader.

Why exactly would Pelosi lose those states? What does the minority leader do that would cause those states to be lost?
Click to expand...

We didn't win any close house races in 2016 in either states.

She is the minority leader, one part of her job is to articulate the vision of the Democratic party going forward and connecting that with the people.

I have nothing against Pelosi, I think she has done remarkably well and she is the reason we have Obamacare. But it is time to pass the baton, the worst part is the current Dem leadership hasn't even groomed new leaders who can take over the party.

Otherwise, Dems will always keep waiting for their next Obama.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Hawaii could hold claim to the entire of Democratic presidents of the new millennium with Gabbard

That would be pretty interesting to think about


Gabbard not being as liberal as most Democrats might actually work in her favor.

Isn't she Hindu? Is America ready for a Hindu woman president?
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Hawaii could hold claim to the entire of Democratic presidents of the new millennium with Gabbard

That would be pretty interesting to think about


Gabbard not being as liberal as most Democrats might actually work in her favor.

Isn't she Hindu? Is America ready for a Hindu woman president?
Click to expand...

Obama showed that if you press the right buttons people can and will look past superficial stuff like that so as long as you can keep the air of likability and being on working people's "side". Like Hillary's voting record was more liberal than Obama but people didn't care and Hillary was the fake republican while obama was the socialist hero for some reason

Given how I am beginning to think she did really well to navigate her way through this primary I think she may have the political awareness to keep it up. Just a feeling I guess. I could be totally wrong but I'm just trying to prepare for anything
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
cartoon_soldier said:
We didn't win any close house races in 2016 in either states.

She is the minority leader, one part of her job is to articulate the vision of the Democratic party going forward and connecting that with the people.

I have nothing against Pelosi, I think she has done remarkably well and she is the reason we have Obamacare. But it is time to pass the baton, the worst part is the current Dem leadership hasn't even groomed new leaders who can take over the party.

Otherwise, Dems will always keep waiting for their next Obama.
Click to expand...

Yes. Obama kind of shielded the democrats' major issues going on with the down-ballot races over the last 8 years, and the democrats clearly have a shortage of up-and-coming candidates. That's a leadership issue.

Frank the Great said:
Yup. The platform is fine. Just need a better candidate.

I maintain that Diamond Joe would have won in a landslide with the exact same platform.
Click to expand...

No Comey.
No E-mails.
No Benghazi.
No sexism.
Guy who reaches out to rural/lower/middle-class voters.
VP in an incredibly popular presidency.

Biden absolutely would have won in a landslide.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
No, I get you. She's not some super duper liberal, but she's positioned herself to be the heir to Bernie, despite not nearly being as liberal as him. Which means she's doing something right if she can convince people about that.

And she's young, pretty, and good enough at speaking that should could likely get by just fine.

Anecdotally, my mom's friends all think she's the next Hillary. The major woman politician of the new era, basically. Also anecdotally, but these same white middle aged women feel like the entire country let them down. It would have made them so proud to have Hillary as president. She's their idol. They keep saying they don't even know who America is anymore, but it's not their country any longer. I think this loss made them hate politics, 90% of them were first time voters who don't seem to ever want to vote again "because it doesn't matter, this country is too stupid"
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
pigeon said:
The problem with Gabbard is that I think we should run a progressive.
Click to expand...
I would prefer a candidate more progressive than her but I don't think she'll have a problem with progressive voters for the most part. They seem to love her already, like I can't even count how many times I've seen "omg Tulsi is such a badass" type stuff reposted on Facebook

Bernie will probably also throw his full support immediately behind her if she decides to run which will help big time in the first few states. He should stay out of it until the primary is done but I don't expect him to if she does because of how she supported him. And I think the dem base will buy his support of her as genuine rather than handwaiving his endorsement like they did with Hillary as some sort of gunpoint deal
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Gross. I just found out my school sponsored a Milo Yiannopoulos speech at the student center yesterday. I know Miami is pretty conservative (it is Paul Ryan's alma mater, after all), but the tiny protest with a full auditorium was pretty disappointing :/
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Exactly. There's no real evidence that a new direction is the winning strategy. Hillary's brand of liberalism won the popular vote with record margins in some of the most liberal states in the country.
Click to expand...

The public don't want a new direction when they elect Donald Trump of all people?

Nancy needs to sit down and reflect on what she is saying. When your candidate, the major force that will decide every other political contest, takes you to lose the presidency, the senate and yet again the house, then something is really really wrong with the leadership of your party. Winning the PV is a insignificant achievement when it does not offers any type of actual political power.

And Tulsi is problematic as fuck. Her Islam views are reaaaally problematic if not out right islamophobic; she does not represent the progressive wing she claims to be a part of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tales of Graces f Remastered - Reviews Thread
23
1K
Paltheos replied
Bringing Dune Awakening to the Xbox Series S will be a "challenge", according to Funcom chief product officer
News 2 3
100
5K
mdkirby replied
First time you realized Japanese devs were GOAT?
Drama Retro Game Dev 2 3
118
4K
Spukc replied
Modern Game Devs Suck at Community Support
2
60
3K
Reizo Ryuu replied
Players are now less "accepting" that games will be fixed, say Paradox, after "underestimating" the reaction to Cities: Skylines 2's performance woes
Game Dev
47
2K
Quantum253 replied
Top Bottom