• 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.
I

IamDodongo

Member
Can those of us with progressive views just agree to work together? Infighting lost us 2016, and we would be completely daft to let that happen again.

I will vote for whoever the Dems nominate.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
I mean it is probably relevant to fanfic about 2020 that a huge number of relevant political figures including the president are old enough that they might not even be around in 2020

But I guess people are having fun
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
IamDodongo said:
Can those of us with progressive views just agree to work together? Infighting lost us 2016, and we would be completely daft to let that happen again.

I will vote for whoever the Dems nominate.
Click to expand...

Not if you're going to tell minority voters that they need to take a back seat.

I won't vote for Bernie in 2020.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
I'm convinced that she does and only didn't run this time around out of respect for Hillary and not stealing her "first woman president" thunder. She even really pushed for getting VP; the signs were there that she wants this.
Click to expand...

Hey, if she wants it, feels her age won't get in the way, and runs, I'm 100% behind her. I know my mom would absolutely die if Warren ran. She loves Warren as if she was her best buddy even though she's never even met her. In fact the only politicians ahead of Warren for my mom are Obama and Hillary. My mom literally has a framed photo of the Obama family mixed in with her regular family photos on a shelf... She hates Bernie though. Blames him for why Hillary lost.

Of course now would be the time someone replies about some dark thing Warren has done in her past that makes her unelectable that I never heard about before.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
IamDodongo said:
Can those of us with progressive views just agree to work together? Infighting lost us 2016, and we would be completely daft to let that happen again.

I will vote for whoever the Dems nominate.
Click to expand...

My expectation is that the Democrats will nominate a candidate who will hold the line on racial and social justice, freedom of religion, and economic justice.

If they do that they will certainly have my vote.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
pigeon said:
There was a wapo article saying exits probably wrong and minorities went less for Trump than Romney, in car can't find it. I agree we should not have to choose between economic and social justice.
Click to expand...

If it is the same article I am thinking of, the WaPo article points out some incorrect assumptions but then erroneously makes bad assertions about what those incorrect assumptions mean. Basically, just because the starting data was bad doesn't mean that the error swings your way.

The WaPo article uses the Latino Decisions folks, which is the argument Enten lights on fire and throws out a window

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...wrong-on-latino-votes/?utm_term=.a2c6cbfcf865

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-better-with-latino-voters-than-romney-did/

The main basis for Latino Decisions’ argument that exit polls are wrong is that their own pre-election polling — conducted with live phone interviews among only Latinos — had Clinton winning Latinos by a margin of 61 percentage points (79 percent to 18 percent), whereas exit polls conducted by Edison Research showed Clinton winning by just 36 points (65 to 29 percent). The disagreement is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute between Edison and Latino-focused pollsters such as Latino Decisions, which have for more than a decade argued that Latinos vote for Democrats by wider margins than other sources claim.

Other polls that surveyed only Latino voters, such as the New Latino Voice poll, generally reported a Clinton margin that was larger than that reported by exit polls, but smaller than the one in the Latino Decisions survey. Polls that surveyed the entire electorate generally agreed with the exit polls. An average of the seven live-interview national surveys conducted in the final weeks of the campaign1 indicates that Clinton led Trump by 33 percentage points among Latinos. And a post-election online poll of the entire electorate from SurveyMonkey had Clinton ahead among Latinos by 39 percentage points. Both are similar to the 36-point lead found by Edison in its exit poll.

The various polls differ methodologically, sometimes in important ways. Latino Decisions argues that it captures Latinos’ views more accurately because the firm’s interviewers are bilingual2 and because it targets areas where a high percentage of the population is Latino, unlike exit polls, which are conducted in random sample precincts that often have few Latino residents. Edison Research argues that exit polls are superior because they don’t need to make assumptions about whether respondents actually voted — an issue that has emerged as a key question this year after pre-election polls overstated support for Clinton. Moreover, Latino Decisions finds people to interview in part by identifying people with common Spanish surnames; that means they may miss Latino voters who don’t have Latino-sounding names, who tend to be more Republican-leaning. Exit polls, because they interview people at random at polling places, don’t have that problem. In the end, there is probably no way to know for sure what share of Latinos voted for Clinton versus Trump, just as we can’t be certain how any group voted in previous presidential matchups. As Nate Cohn of The New York Times has noted, different methodologies for judging how various demographics vote can produce different results.

We have a better chance of answering a different question: How did Clinton’s margin of victory among Latinos compare to Obama’s in 2012? Here, too, Latino Decisions disagrees with other pollsters. The firm’s data shows that Clinton did better among Latinos than Obama did four years earlier, when the firm showed him beating Romney by 52 points. Other firms’ polls of the entire electorate, however, show that she did worse than Obama, according to both exit polls and pre-election polls. Obama won by an average of 38 percentage points among Latinos in 2012, according to pre-election polls analyzed by the New York Times’ The Upshot blog, compared to Clinton’s average 33-point lead in the polls leading up to Election Day this year. Keep in mind too that Clinton did a little worse overall than the national polls suggested, so she may have done a little worse with Latinos, too.

Latino Decisions also points to another source of data: actual election results from counties across the country. A slideshow that Latino Decisions put together after the election shows that heavily Latino counties voted for Clinton by wide margins — she often won those counties by 40 or more percentage points.3

The trouble for Clinton is that although she won Latino-heavy districts, she lost ground in many of them compared to how Obama performed there four years earlier. There are 24 U.S. counties in which Latinos made up at least three-quarters of the voting-age population in 2015; Clinton’s margin of victory was smaller than Obama’s in 18 of them, by an average of nearly 10 percentage points.4 Clinton also underperformed Obama in five of the six counties where Latinos make up at least 90 percent of the voting-age population.
Click to expand...

COUNTY HISPANIC SHARE 2016 VOTES OBAMA CLINTON CHANGE
Starr, Texas 95.7% 11,691 +73.3 +60.1 -13.2
Maverick, Texas 95.1 13,588 +58.1 +55.8 -2.3
Webb, Texas 94.6 56,867 +54.0 +51.6 -2.4
Zavala, Texas 92.6 3,390 +67.6 +57.3 -10.3
Zapata, Texas 92.6 3,134 +43.2 +32.8 -10.4
Jim Hogg, Texas 91.1 2,119 +56.7 +56.9 +0.2
Average -6.4

Clinton underperformed Obama in counties where over 90 percent of the voting-age population was Hispanic

Sources: ABC News, Census Bureau

Clinton didn’t underperform everywhere. Latino Decisions points to a number of heavily Latino precincts in Chicago, Los Angeles County and Miami-Dade County (which has a heavily Cuban population) where Clinton outperformed Obama. She also did better in El Paso and San Antonio, Texas, which were not specifically highlighted by Latino Decisions. Those are all heavily populated areas, unlike some of the rural Texas counties where she underperformed. It’s possible that Clinton’s strength in those larger counties was enough to make her nationwide margin among Latinos wider than Obama’s. But even in the few areas where Clinton outperformed Obama, she rarely did so by as much as we would expect if Clinton improved her margin among Latinos by as much as Latino Decisions found in their survey.

Also, in a number of heavily populated areas, Clinton did worse than Obama in the precincts and districts where a lot of Latinos live. Latino Decisions laid out a long list of precincts and districts in which Clinton performed well, including parts of Las Cruces, New Mexico; Milwaukee; New York City; Cleveland; and Kissimmee, Florida. In nearly all of them, Clinton’s margin of victory was smaller than Obama’s. Her margin was also smaller in some Latino-heavy areas of Chicago and Los Angeles that weren’t mentioned by Latino Decisions. (Latino Decisions also highlighted Clinton’s performance in Arizona, where her margin was roughly the same as Obama’s in 2012.)

Barreto said Latino Decisions is primarily concerned with determining the share of the Latino vote that Clinton and Trump won, not how this year’s outcome compares to 2012’s. “We’re not necessarily interested in comparisons to Obama, although that will eventually be part of our story,” Barreto said. “We’re just trying to estimate what Clinton’s vote share was and what Trump’s vote share was in 2016 on Election Day.”

The county-level data also points to a larger issue: Clinton did significantly worse than Obama overall, both nationally and in most individual counties. That means that to have won Latinos by a larger margin than Obama — and especially to have won by 9 points more, as Latino Decisions’ data implies — Clinton would have to be finding much more support among that group than Obama did even as evidence suggests she got less support from every other racial and ethnic demographic. County-level election results suggest Clinton lost less ground among Latinos than among other demographic groups, especially non-Hispanic whites, but she still seems to have lost ground, not gained it.
Click to expand...

And the key part

Voting results don’t prove that Clinton did worse than Obama among Latinos, or that Trump did better than Romney. But the results do suggest that if nearly 80 percent of Latinos voted for Clinton, as Latino Decisions argues, then Latino turnout must have been down in many counties, or Clinton must have done much worse than Obama among non-Latinos in those counties. Otherwise, the overwhelming pro-Clinton Latino vote would have swung heavily Latino counties more dramatically toward Clinton. The evidence, then, suggests that Clinton fell short among Latinos in one of two ways: Either she didn’t win as large a share of them as Obama, or she didn’t convince as many of them to turn out to vote. Since both the exit polls and Latino Decisions agree that turnout among Latinos was up, the latter explanation doesn’t seem likely.
Click to expand...
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Aside:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html

Whee, we learn Pentagon wastes about 150 billion a year, Pentagon orders the study buried.

In briefings that month, uniformed military leaders were receptive at first. They had long groused that the Pentagon wasted money on a layer of defense bureaucracies — known as the Fourth Estate — that were outside the control of the Army, Air Force and Navy. Military officials often felt those agencies performed duplicative services and oversight.

But the McKinsey consultants had also collected data that exposed how the military services themselves were spending princely sums to hire hordes of defense contractors.

For example, the Army employed 199,661 full-time contractors, according to a confidential McKinsey report obtained by The Post. That alone exceeded the combined civil workforce for the Departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development.

The average cost to the Army for each contractor that year: $189,188, including salary, benefits and other expenses.

The Navy was not much better. It had 197,093 contractors on its payroll. On average, each cost $170,865.

In comparison, the Air Force had 122,470 contractors. Each cost, on average, $186,142.
Click to expand...
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Seems like Carper might retire in 2018.

Considering how centrist the DELegation (lol I crack myself up) is, it'd be nice to get someone in a safe seat who isn't a Chris Coons-esque moderate.

Lisa Blunt Rochester is a freshman, but she could run (hi Tom Cotton, Steve Daines). I guess John Carney could run, but he just won the governorship.
 
R

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
On cnn


Mike pence is being asked did he knew that the transition team put in Flynn son (who spreads pozza gate) was to get security clearance

Jake keeps saying he's not answering the question despite being at the head of transition team. Pence call this a distraction
 
D

Diablos

Member
Trump made all the rules for running for Pres not matter. Plus he has a gutted VRA at his disposal. If he can get away with this election and carry OH, PA, MI and WI with him he can win anything.

He's changed what it means to run for and be President. Forever. And not in a good way.
 
D

Durden77

Member
Just wanna say props to Jake Tapper. He just would not stop hammering Pence on answering the question about security clearance. Which he never did. We need more of that than ever before. We needed more of it during the election really.

What would have made it better though would have been once he realized he still wasn't going to answer the question after the third time, he should have said "So you don't know. You're saying as the head of the transition team you don't know if he was granted security clearance is what you're saying". That could've made Pence squirm a bit.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
Warren will get lit on fire over the Native American controversy.

She's going to lose just because of that one issue. It's going to be a lightning rod for the Trump coalition, since it's someone using AA for their benefit.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
Sirpopopop said:
Warren will get lit on fire over the Native American controversy.

She's going to lose just because of that one issue. It's going to be a lightning rod for the Trump coalition, since it's someone using AA for their benefit.
Click to expand...
I didn't follow her senate race but didn't she have a good response to the allegations? i do think it could weigh down on her electoral chances. It's basically s running joke meme among minorities about white people who claim (insignificant number)% of Native American to get benefits.
 
L

Lois_Lane

Member
RastaMentality said:
I didn't follow her senate race but didn't she have a good response to the allegations? i do think it could weigh down on her electoral chances. It's basically s running joke meme among minorities about white people who claim (insignificant number)% of Native American to get benefits.
Click to expand...

Hillary had a good response to the emails.

Didn't matter.
 
D

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
VendettaRed07 said:
Warren is boosting no one but herself because she's running



We have to hold him accountable for broken promises. He shouldn't be able to walk back the wall as "rhetoric" or whatever. GHWB wasn't able to walk back no new taxes and neither should Trump.
Click to expand...
Democrats are incompetent and Trump has proven he will not be accountable for anything. The media has proven they will not hold him accountable and will serve as his propaganda tool. Everything will be the Democrats fault and their inability to do anything to counter that will make it stick.

The only way Trump doesn't win in 2020 is if he chooses not to run.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
Warren won't make it through a primary. She hasn't so far shown the fundraising prowess of a Gillibrand. She doesn't have the affable charm of a Booker. She doesn't have the connections to the AA and other minority communities except Native Americans. She will run into similar issues with certain voting blocs by virtue of being an old, white, professional, college-educated East Coast woman.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Androidsleeps said:
The problem with the discussion about radical islam is that there seem to be two loud voices dominating the conversation: The borderline bigoted ignorant voice (alt-right, right-wing populists, etc); and the side that keep refusing to admit there's a serious issue with fundamentalist islamic ideology that harbours dangerous ideas, and seem unwelling to have a much needed serious discussion about the matter (perhaps fearing being lumped in with the first group).

Surely there must be a middle-point where we can soberly address this crisis in a meaningful way and not be drowned by those two voices. Because until we do so, I don't see a way to solve this issue with islamism/jihadism. As someone from the Middle East, I see that the mainstream discourse dominated with these two voices, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that Harris, for instance, may on occasion put his foot in his mouth when talking about Islam. However, he obviously has a clear understanding of the issue and in noway can be compared to Trump.

Labeling any criticism of islam as islamophobia helps no one and in a way validates the claims of actual islamophobes.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely middle ground and lot of good speakers who can talk the subject. Unfortunately they get labelled as "Islam apologists" by both New Atheists and Alt-Right alike. Do you think Dawkins/Harris types are open to talking about religion in a reasonable manner? Media does not like speakers who say "we can solve stuff". They are more interested in controversy and hence bring either bomb throwers who talk about bringing Shariah to town or speakers who want to dismantle Islam as a religion.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
shinra-bansho said:
Warren won't make it through a primary. She hasn't so far shown the fundraising prowess of a Gillibrand. She doesn't have the affable charm of a Booker. She doesn't have the connections to the AA and other minority communities except Native Americans. She will run into similar issues with certain voting blocs by virtue of being an old, white, professional, college-educated East Coast woman.
Click to expand...

Donald J Trump will be our next president and I believe that means we should never look at any person and say "they can't win for x reasons" until they actually prove they can't. I wouldn't rule out The Rock as #46 at this point.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
gutter_trash said:
Air Force One is a flying secured Communications HQ, the Prez must be available for contact at all times

I doubt that is stupid Trump plane is up to spec with all those tacky gold plated seat buckles and faucets
Click to expand...

I also doubt it could withstand the pressure wave of a nuclear blast, a hit from a missile, or an EMP and keep functioning.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Literally every Republican legislature over the next few years

"we are just going to do this now and see if anyone actually tries and stops us".

We need to win back some legislatures in 2017.
 
G

geomon

Member
Carrier union leader: Trump 'lied his ass off' about deal

President-elect Donald Trump "lied his a-- off" about the terms of the deal to keep Carrier manufacturing jobs in the United States, the Carrier union's president said Tuesday.

United Steelworkers 1999 President Chuck Jones was optimistic when Trump first promised to save the jobs of 1,350 workers at Carrier's Indiana plant, the Washington Post reports. Carrier had originally planned to move the jobs to Mexico, but decided to keep 730 of the jobs in Indiana after receiving $7 million in tax breaks from the state.

Jones told The Post that he hoped Trump would explain at a Dec. 1 meeting 550 of the Carrier jobs weren't saved. “But he got up there,” Jones said, “and, for whatever reason, lied his a-- off."
Click to expand...

Jones said the numbers of jobs saved reported by Trump and Pence were misleading and included positions that weren't slated to move to Mexico.

“Trump and Pence, they pulled a dog and pony show on the numbers,” Jones said. “I almost threw up in my mouth.”
Click to expand...

Welp, didn't see that coming...
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Oh look, hospitals are finally saying what we in here have been saying for months:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


Hospitals Issue Dire Warnings About Repealing Obamacare Without A Backup Plan
Lobbying groups are concerned about losing more than half a trillion dollars -- which would threaten access to care.

...

Hospitals will be seriously threatened if neither action occurs, Tom Nickels, executive vice president for government relations and public policy, said Tuesday during a conference call with reporters.

“Repealing the ACA while leaving its Medicare and Medicaid cuts in place will have huge implications for hospitals and the patients they serve,” Nickels said. “Loses of the magnitude that we’re going to discuss cannot be sustained and will adversely impact patients access to care, decimate hospitals’ and health systems’ ability to provide services, weaken local economies that hospitals sustain and grow, and result in massive job losses.”

Hospital companies hold uncommonly large sway over lawmakers because the facilities they operate are vital elements of the infrastructure and economy of virtually every community in the United States. They are major employers and have a physical presence in every congressional district in the country.
Click to expand...

Way more at the link.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that whatever they replace ACA with is going to be a complete disaster for millions of people.
 
R

Ryuuroden

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Which the GOP does not control (yet).

And even so, I don't even think the GOP controlled SC would let this fly. Letting this slide would effectively be overruling Roe v Wade and they're not going to do that any time soon.
Click to expand...

Right, and even with a trump nominee, Kennedy would not side with the gop but its still not something I want to rely on. Abortion rights have been chipped away for years. They don't have to overturn roe to make it impossible to get an abortion.
 
G

geomon

Member
Ryuuroden said:
It can be if you control the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Even with that disgusting fuck Scalia on the court, they couldn't overturn Roe v Wade. This is patently unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it's going to take a while for this case to be struck down by them. So until then, the people will suffer.

B-Dubs said:
Shocked I say! Shocked!
Click to expand...

Think this will get the same coverage as the initial announcement of the deal did? Surely the "liberal media" will report this and call Trump out on his bullshit.
 
T

Totakeke

Member
geomon said:
Even with that disgusting fuck Scalia on the court, they couldn't overturn Roe v Wade. This is patently unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it's going to take a while for this case to be struck down by them. So until then, the people will suffer.



Think this will get the same coverage as the initial announcement of the deal did? Surely the "liberal media" will report this and call Trump out on his bullshit.
Click to expand...

I don't see "Instead of 1100 jobs, only 700 jobs were saved!" being big news.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
It was already known that about 300-400 of the jobs "saved" were never at risk. Some reporting mentioned it in passing, others didn't care. 1000 is such a nice round number?

VendettaRed07 said:
Donald J Trump will be our next president and I believe that means we should never look at any person and say "they can't win for x reasons" until they actually prove they can't. I wouldn't rule out The Rock as #46 at this point.
Click to expand...
She can run. She could have run this time. She would have lost and will likely lose a primary contest.

So can Liberal Icon Tulsi Gabbard.
 
K

kess

Member
I feel like shit is really starting to snowball now. God help us if the face of the country is going to be this demented for the next four years.
 
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