Support NeoGAF

[VendettaRed07]

Think we get a federal minimum wage increase to around $10 in the first 100 days. Or a plan to raise it that much through 2020.

Trump is smart enough to know that after dragging expectations to the floor, throwing a bone like that can release the pressure valves enough to make people forget about huge portions of his fuckery.

 

[Vixdean]

Think we get a federal minimum wage increase to around $10 in the first 100 days. Or a plan to raise it that much through 2020.

Trump is smart enough to know that after dragging expectations to the floor, throwing a bone like that can release the pressure valves enough to make people forget about huge portions of his fuckery.

With a Republican Congress? Come on. The only "populist" legislation I see him passing in his first 100 days is something related to taxes.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Think we get a federal minimum wage increase to around $10 in the first 100 days. Or a plan to raise it that much through 2020.

Trump is smart enough to know that after dragging expectations to the floor, throwing a bone like that can release the pressure valves enough to make people forget about huge portions of his fuckery.

The GOP is never going to pass a $10 minimum wage.

 

[VendettaRed07]

With a Republican Congress? Come on. The only "populist" legislation I see him passing in his first 100 days is something related to taxes.

Well the Republican Congress won't have to fight against popular legislation worrying that it might actually make their political opposition look good. I think there's a chance somethings of this sort get through.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Never say never

 

[WaffleTaco]

Think we get a federal minimum wage increase to around $10 in the first 100 days. Or a plan to raise it that much through 2020.

Trump is smart enough to know that after dragging expectations to the floor, throwing a bone like that can release the pressure valves enough to make people forget about huge portions of his fuckery.

Isn't the new Secretary of Labor against minimum wage in the first place?

As a side note, who the hell knows what is actually going to happen, because he's a wild card and is so impulsive. He doesn't have a plan, he wings the fuck out of it.

 

[benjipwns]

"at least I will go down as a President @RealDonaldTrump"

 

[Dominican Power]

What are the chances we'll see boots on the ground under Trump? I'm gonna say highly likely.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Well the Republican Congress won't have to fight against popular legislation worrying that it might actually make their political opposition look good. I think there's a chance somethings of this sort get through.

They fight for discrimination against gay people, which is unpopular

They fight for less regulation around climate change, which is unpopular

They made their main #1 priority repealing a law people do not want repealed.

The GOP really doesn't care if legislation is popular or not.

What are the chances we'll see boots on the ground under Trump? I'm gonna say highly likely.

110% guaranteed we enter a war. If only because a war increases Trump's chances in 2020

 

[Retromelon]

Poor hillary!

 

[shinra-bansho]

Oh Trump is actually openly questioning adherence to the One China policy.

This will surely go down well in Beijing.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Isn't the new Secretary of Labor against minimum wage in the first place?

Probably. But I don't think it will matter. Trump doesn't even agree with his own Vice President on foreign policy.

I think Trump is aware that he needs to present something more tangable, that people can actually feel beyond tax breaks on the wealthy in order to get people on his side. He has to be because doing that is exactly what won him the nomination/presidency.

But he's already running low on what I believe he can actually pull off. Wall isn't going to happen. Trade deal renegotiations are unluckly. Maybe a minimum wage increase won't happen but I imagine it's more likely than some people think it is

 

[benjipwns]

Poor hillary!

LYIN BERNIE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE ANY BETTER, HOW DARE YOU, MOST QUALIFIED

 

[kirblar]

Maybe a vocal few, but I think most people will move on from it when reality smacks them in the face.

Reality never smacks those types in the face.

 

[Trouble]

There won't be a presumptive nominee eight years before the next primary.

Sixteeen, really.

 

[benjipwns]

How dare you, she just wanted to be the best Senator for New York she could be, in no way was she, she is a hard worker, Yankees fan for life, she wants to listen, this is not about the Presidency, it's only because she's a woman you i can't, who is this Obama guy think he is, he's probably muslim, have we seen his birth certificate?

 

[Valdfellgar]

Reality never smacks those types in the face.

Right, sorry, only doom and gloom. My bad.

Spoiler

Please, there are a vocal few who will always bring it up, but most people are going to have moved on. I don't see anyone talking about Primary bow outs from Kerry, Gore, or other years. Sure this was a more volatile election, but only the most stalwart of Bernie Bros will even want to have this discussion in 2020.

 

[benjipwns]

To build off that though, Gore endorsing Dean was a big one in 2004. Especially in terms of making him a "legitimate candidate" considering where he started as.

Bernie could theoretically have some power in a race that looks like that, lots of second tier and career Senators and gadflys challenging an incumbent President who isn't necessarily popular.

Just to grab off Wikipedia's 2020 "speculation" list to make a "hypothetical" lineup:
Booker, Sherrod Brown, Bullock, de Blasio, Hickenlooper, Manchin, Murphy, Klobuchar, O'Malley, Steyer.

Say that's your field, with some of those doing the "I'm not running, I'm not running, shhh i'm maybe running" game. Bernie's backing is definitely one at least half those candidates will chase. Especially if they could grab both Bernie and Warren that locks up your left flank and lets you try to push out the rest.

 

[WaffleTaco]

To build off that though, Gore endorsing Dean was a big one in 2004. Especially in terms of making him a "legitimate candidate" considering where he started as.

Bernie could theoretically have some power in a race that looks like that, lots of second tier and career Senators and gadflys challenging an incumbent President who isn't necessarily popular.

This is why I am already dreading 2020 elections. My only hope is the people who wanted a "non-politician" come to their senses when they see that he is just like rest of them except worse because he has no idea what he is doing.

 

[shinra-bansho]

He can put his sway behind Liberal Icon Tulsi Gabbard. Hero to all.

Edit: Lol, benji that's a terrible list.
I just looked it up. Seriously, who "speculated" up this bullshit by including everyone under the sun.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

There won't be a presumptive nominee eight years before the next primary.

One would hope there wouldn't.

 

[benjipwns]

Lol, benji that's a terrible list.

Meet your 2016 Democratic Party.

 

[StormBrute]

What I'm worried about for 2020 is that a Trump DOJ just makes up some random thing to charge the Democrat challenger. Putin just plants whatever on the political opponents he doesn't murder, why wouldn't Trump?

 

[benjipwns]

I just looked it up. Seriously, who "speculated" up this bullshit.

Look at the Green Party candidate!

Traditionally, wikipedia has used a "they appeared in some politico/the hill list in the last six months" methodology for this far out. The real keys are the declines. Rarely do those reverse.

And by rarely I mean using the 2012 and 2016 cycles.

 

[Dominican Power]

https://twitter.com/eyoonCNBC/status/808148534130151424


Idiot-elect

 

[Valdfellgar]

https://twitter.com/eyoonCNBC/status/808148534130151424


Idiot-elect

Yikes.

 

[Balphon]

https://twitter.com/eyoonCNBC/status/808148534130151424


Idiot-elect

Don't worry, Trump will hear about this at his weekly briefing Wednesday.

 

[Got the Shakes]

Don't worry, Trump will hear about this at his weekly briefing Wednesday.

And then of course will take to Twitter to talk some shit about China.

 

[Rebel Leader]

https://twitter.com/eyoonCNBC/status/808148534130151424


Idiot-elect

New thread for new news

 

[Frank the Great]

China needs to step up their foreign hacking game for 2020. Hopefully they can get some nice blackmail on whoever the Dem nominee is.

If 2020 is China v. Russia maybe the Democrats will stand a chance.

 

[VendettaRed07]

What I'm worried about for 2020 is that a Trump DOJ just makes up some random thing to charge the Democrat challenger. Putin just plants whatever on the political opponents he doesn't murder, why wouldn't Trump?

We can't look at what did Hillary in and assume it'll hurt everyone else. I've said this before but there's a reason why emailz, benghazi, and other scandals stuck to Hillary and not to Obama.

It isn't like the GOP didn't try. People just dismissed similar attempts on Obama because most people believe he was genuine and a decent guy.

Like had Hillary been President and shipped cargos full of cash to Iran that would have been the top news story, treason, impeachment, etc. But Obama did it so people stopped caring after like 2 days because people don't think he would actively commit treason.

 

[Dominican Power]

https://twitter.com/markoff/status/807790485490122753

Seriously

 

[Rebel Leader]

Wasn't it frozen assets from the iran-contra thing?

 

[benjipwns]

Right. As much as GAF may like to reiterate their belief that there was no fire to the smoke around Hillary, that's not what everyone else thinks. Including Democrats.

In one respect, it's the other side of the coin for the positions she's held.

It was said, before 2008, that Senators didn't win Presidential elections because their votes came back to bite them.

Hillary as first lady, Senator and Secretary of State brought with it negatives to counter all the positives.

Martin O'Malley has tons of shit, probably even more corrupt, but you know why nobody would care? Because he was Governor of Maryland and Mayor of Baltimore. Not someone on TV for thirty years in the highest reaches of power.

Trump used this game against everyone in the primaries because he wasn't tied to shit, Hillary was tied to more than everyone in the GOP primaries combined. Even the idiots like Jeb! who tied themselves to their brother.

Hillary was also effectively running as the incumbent in more ways than one, which helped to tie Obama's shit to her too. Those benefits and negatives will shift in 2020.

 

[Chumley]

https://twitter.com/markoff/status/807790485490122753

Seriously

How is this not grounds for an audit/recount...?

What a fucking mess.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

https://twitter.com/eyoonCNBC/status/808148534130151424



Idiot-elect

Well, fuck.

https://twitter.com/markoff/status/807790485490122753

Seriously

Same thing happened in North Carolina...........I'm sure a complete coincidence.

 

[sphagnum]

https://twitter.com/markoff/status/807790485490122753

Seriously

Gaaaaah

 

[benjipwns]

How is this not grounds for an audit/recount...?

What a fucking mess.

Because that's not the actual story? Read the tweet below which links to the source: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/

Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.

According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand.

Even so, Baxter said it’s unlikely all 392 of the city’s precincts with mismatched numbers will be disqualified from a recount. The city is in contact with elections officials at the state of Michigan and Baxter predicted the numbers will match when the ballot boxes are re-opened for the recount, which starts Tuesday in Wayne County at Cobo Center.

“It’s a challenge, but we’re confident the ballots will match,” Baxter said. “I don’t think it’s going to be 100 percent, but it never is with a recount.”

In Detroit, 158 of the 392 precincts with ballot discrepancies had just one extra ballot accounted for either in the poll book or in the ballot box, according to the Wayne County’s canvassing report.

For suburban Wayne County, 72 percent of the 218 precincts boxes with discrepancies in the number of ballots were off by one ballot.

The other ballot discrepancies in Detroit and Wayne County precincts ranged between two and five ballots, according to the report.

It doesn't matter ultimately because the recounts were stopped by a court. These were the preliminaries:

Figures released by the Secretary of State's Office late Friday show that after recounting about 2.1 million ballots, the final margin between Trump, who carried Michigan, and Clinton, changed by 102 votes in Clinton's favor.

In Oakland County, which recounted more than 521,000 ballots, the net difference in the presidential race was a gain of 34 votes for Trump. That's less than 1/100th of 1%.

This is basically statistically accurate. Hillary could not have made up the margin via these shifts.

The main thing now is that Jill Stein is trying to get her million dollars back but the GOP might change the law so she can't get a refund.

 

[VendettaRed07]

How is this not grounds for an audit/recount...?

What a fucking mess.

Probably because it's a fake news story

 

[Holmes]

Can we please post the content of a tweet instead of just linking it? That's almost as annoying as reading a post of benji trying to be funny.

 

[benjipwns]

Can we please post the content of a tweet instead of just linking it? That's almost as annoying as reading a post of benji trying to be funny.

John MarkoffVerified account
‏@markoff
Michigan officials admit majority of Detroit vote counting machines broke on Election Day - Palmer Report

Meanwhile, the mere fact that fifty-nine percent of the vote counting machines in Michigan’s biggest city all broke on the same day is standing out as a stunning development.

Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.

He’s acknowledging that eighty-seven optical scanners in Detroit simply “broke” on the same day.

He blamed the discrepancies on the city’s decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. Many jammed when voters fed ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if ballots are inserted multiple times. Poll workers are supposed to adjust counters to reflect a single vote but in many cases failed to do so, causing the discrepancies, Baxter said.

In other words, nothing broke but temporarily jammed, but it was still stolen:

Dada14 on December 7, 2016 at 12:31 am
Hillary Clinton won Michigan and by a large margin. The question here is why the op scanner only broke in heavily Democratic areas.

MDrRedhead on December 9, 2016 at 12:29 pm
This is making me crazy! We all sensed that fraud happened, now we have proof! Not bloody likely that the election machines all broke, and on election day!

also it's weird to not see but be able to identify chad in the embedded video by his voice

 

[MIMIC]

Because that's not the actual story?

John Markoff - New York Times technology reporter

-____-

 

[benjipwns]

What do you expect from a known Russian propaganda rag?

"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."

--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1

"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."

--New York Times, August 23, 1933

"Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding."

--New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6

"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."

--New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13

 

[Makai]

"Give Trump foreign policy a chance!" ~ Henry Kissinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5UfULffFVc

 

[AntraxSuicide]

We can't look at what did Hillary in and assume it'll hurt everyone else. I've said this before but there's a reason why emailz, benghazi, and other scandals stuck to Hillary and not to Obama.

It isn't like the GOP didn't try. People just dismissed similar attempts on Obama because most people believe he was genuine and a decent guy.

Like had Hillary been President and shipped cargos full of cash to Iran that would have been the top news story, treason, impeachment, etc. But Obama did it so people stopped caring after like 2 days because people don't think he would actively commit treason.

People dismissed this stuff about Obama because he was super green. Other than his DNC speech, no one knew anything about him at all. He hadn't done anything to really leave a mark, and that plays well with our base since our base has a non-insignificant chunk of voters who think that compromise (even though the nation is skewed right) is disqualifying.

I'd argue that anyone with a record of actually passing legislation is probably a no-go for future nominees. It's gross as hell, but if you wanna inspire people, you need someone with no record. The other side of this is that you need someone who's competent and knows what they're talking about (the Dem base also wants this), which means you don't want people who have no record with super long careers (because that implies they're bad at their jobs).

Obama united these factions since he was too green to have ever really compromised with Republicans, but he was young enough that his lack of a record didn't signal incompetence. This year we didn't have that candidate. We had a knowledgeable candidate with a long record of compromise, and an unknowledgeable candidate with a long career of standing his ground (and not doing much).

If you have to pick one, the former will actually get minorities out to vote and will win the primary, but I think you need both to win the general.

 

[MIMIC]

https://twitter.com/eyoonCNBC/status/808148534130151424


Idiot-elect

*deep, heavy sigh*

 

[benjipwns]

"Give Trump foreign policy a chance!" ~ Henry Kissinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5UfULffFVc

Wait, was that the entire speech?

 

[VendettaRed07]

People dismissed this stuff about Obama because he was super green. Other than his DNC speech, no one knew anything about him at all. He hadn't done anything to really leave a mark, and that plays well with our base since our base has a non-insignificant chunk of voters who think that compromise (even though the nation is skewed right) is disqualifying.

I'd argue that anyone with a record of actually passing legislation is probably a no-go for future nominees. It's gross as hell, but if you wanna inspire people, you need someone with no record. The other side of this is that you need someone who's competent and knows what they're talking about (the Dem base also wants this), which means you don't want people who have no record with super long careers (because that implies they're bad at their jobs).

Obama united these factions since he was too green to have ever really compromised with Republicans, but he was young enough that his lack of a record didn't signal incompetence. This year we didn't have that candidate. We had a knowledgeable candidate with a long record of compromise, and an unknowledgeable candidate with a long career of standing his ground (and not doing much).

If you have to pick one, the former will actually get minorities out to vote and will win the primary, but I think you need both to win the general.

I mean, you can be experienced but as Benji pointed out, congress is a mess and votes can come back to haunt senators.

We need to do better in Governor races. It's pathetic how few we have. And how pretty much all of them suck doesn't really help much either. Unless Jerry Brown wants to give it another go.

 

[Retromelon]

Can we please post the content of a tweet instead of just linking it? That's almost as annoying as reading a post of benji trying to be funny.

Damn son lol

It's a welcome reprieve from this thread's perpetual pants shitting over trump at least

 

[benjipwns]

Trump's position coming out of the 2018 midterms determines what kind of field you get.

All the so-called "stars" on the Democratic bench can easily punt to 2024.

Look at what the two parties trotted out in 2004 and 2012 against a President who was sorta popular but plausibly beatable. It wasn't their big guns. Hell, even 1996 and 1992 fits.