• 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.
Yeah. I don't think Jon Stewart is coming back though, so hopefully someone will take up his mantle. Colbert's old role as well. Samantha Bee is doing a good job but her and John Oliver's format probably doesn't as much of a reach as those two back then.

Jon Stewart would have been useless this cycle. Did you see his reaction to Clinton. He thinks she's an amoral politician who doesn't even know what her own beliefs are. He'd have been all over e-mail shit just as much as everyone else probably.
 

Totakeke

Member
Jon Stewart would have been useless this cycle. Did you see his reaction to Clinton. He thinks she's an amoral politician who doesn't even know what her own beliefs are. He'd have been all over e-mail shit just as much as everyone else probably.

No I didn't and you're probably right. But in any case it's now fighting against Trump rather than carrying any baggage forward.
 
https://twitter.com/NPRinskeep/status/809411698713120768



"One of his first actions after being elected was to give Carrier $16.5m to lay off more workers after promising he'd keep their jobs" *video of Trump saying they'd keep their jobs* *sepia-toned video of closed plant* *sepia-toned video of people looking at bills shaking their heads*

As long as we don't pretend Trump has crazy super powers (like we used to do with Rove) he's going to have plenty of vulnerabilities that we can exploit with the right candidates and messaging. Not saying it will be easy, but he's made a bunch of promises he either can't keep or has no intention of keeping.
 
Jon Stewart would have been useless this cycle. Did you see his reaction to Clinton. He thinks she's an amoral politician who doesn't even know what her own beliefs are. He'd have been all over e-mail shit just as much as everyone else probably.
The left bought into the right wing smears at all levels.
 

studyguy

Member
Whiplash from Sean Hannity singing Assange's praises from just a couple of years ago asking him to be extradited and jailed is nuts.
 
Jon Stewart would have been useless this cycle. Did you see his reaction to Clinton. He thinks she's an amoral politician who doesn't even know what her own beliefs are. He'd have been all over e-mail shit just as much as everyone else probably.
True. John Oliver did a much better job of sifting through the nonsense imo.
 
Oliver and Bee were about the few "media" personalities with their heads on right, Colbert to I guess but Colbert never had the same power as Stewart.
Colbert didn't get his groove until the last few weeks of the election. He squandered months of material with simple pg-13 jokesies. He found it eventually but it was too late by then. It's tough to fill in Letterman's shoes though but Colbert gets A for effort.

Edit: Agreed. Bee is the star of 2016 late night.
 

Blader

Member
Did anyone else listen to Evan McMullin on Keepin It 1600 the other day? I have to imagine I'd disagree with him on virtually every policy point, but I came away actually kind of liking him, personality-wise. He was good conversation.

Am I crazy for thinking that if Romney or Kasich became president that they could garner a lot of goodwill?

They would be greeted as liberators.
 

studyguy

Member
Ideally I'd like some media personalities who don't simply run on jokes to become more prominent in reaching the mainstream, but whatever. Sam Bee is about as good as it gets right now. The best I could see Stewart doing was drawing Trump's ire early on in the primary/general. That'd get a couple tweets but not much else.
 
Oh.


I mean, you're a different political party, but okay.
DSA aren't really a political party, they don't run their own candidates and instead focus more on activism and supporting socialist Democrats*. This past year they worked for Bernie's campaign and for some state senator in Maine.

It's more like if Planned Parenthood gave their endorsement for DNC chair.

*or Greens maybe if they think they're viable and socialist? They'd also probably support Socialist Alternative candidates since they've gotten someone elected and almost got another.
 
No why would I ever think things are going to turn out ok? There is fuck all indicating that things are going to turn out ok.

Thinking things are going to be ok isn't rolling with the punches it's ignoring all of them hitting you right in the fucking face until you're unconscious or dead.

Well, we're not dead yet, are we? And worrying that we're going to drop dead next year is well..lets get to next year? Id love for some civil unrest but thats not going to happen, so why worry about who he picks for this or that if people are just going to sneer and get on with their day. So Trump picks some right wing nut for this, what are people doing about it except saying "well now its really over"?

Thats the part I dont care for. Trump picks Y, well we are fucked now lets bedwet for the next two days and then move on. So now what?
 
Well, we're not dead yet, are we? And worrying that we're going to drop dead next year is well..lets get to next year? Id love for some civil unrest but thats not going to happen, so why worry about who he picks for this or that if people are just going to sneer and get on with their day. So Trump picks some right wing nut for this, what are people doing about it except saying "well now its really over"?

Thats the part I dont care for. Trump picks Y, well we are fucked now lets bedwet for the next two days and then move on. So now what?

How about you stop trivializing what's happening.

I mean you're free to not care but how about not complaining about people who do.
 

jtb

Banned
Did anyone else listen to Evan McMullin on Keepin It 1600 the other day? I have to imagine I'd disagree with him on virtually every policy point, but I came away actually kind of liking him, personality-wise. He was good conversation.



They would be greeted as liberators.

That was my takeaway, too. If anything, he actually seems like someone who genuinely believes that someone like Donald Trump is why the federal gov should have less power (as opposed to just as a means of cutting taxes for the wealthy and slashing social programs for the poor).
 
How about you stop trivializing what's happening.

I mean you're free to not care but how about not complaining about people who do.

Nah, Im not complaining. Im just sad at the inaction of people. Trump is halfway to being President, a month away. Wheres the protests? Wheres the civil unrest? If I had the charisma to band together people to go out there and protest, I would. But I dont. And Im sad that the most people can muster is say we are doomed. At that point, Im just like...hey, maybe we shouldnt count our chickens before they hatch if all youre going to do is smash the eggs before they do.

Yeah, we are in a shit position. But we gotta keep passing those open windows, ya know?
 

kirblar

Member
Nah, Im not complaining. Im just sad at the inaction of people. Trump is halfway to being President, a month away. Wheres the protests? Wheres the civil unrest? If I had the charisma to band together people to go out there and protest, I would. But I dont. And Im sad that the most people can muster is say we are doomed. At that point, Im just like...hey, maybe we shouldnt count our chickens before they hatch if all youre going to do is smash the eggs before they do.

Yeah, we are in a shit position. But we gotta keep passing those open windows, ya know?
The idea that protests and civil unrest are the only/best way of fighting this are juvenile and antiquated.

What is holding a sign up going to do? Shouting at people on the street? What possible attention could you bring to this that isn't already being showered upon it?

And before anyone brings up Standing Rock -the protestors had leverage there. They were physically blocking construction.
 
The idea that protests and civil unrest are the only/best way of fighting this are juvenile and antiquated.

What is holding a sign up going to do? Shouting at people on the street? What possible attention could you bring to this that isn't already being showered upon it?

And before anyone brings up Standing Rock -the protestors had leverage there. They were physically blocking construction.

Thats what I mean.

Stop people from going to work by creating human blockades. Block Wall St. Go to Trump Tower and just go and create a human blockade. Thats what I mean by protest/civil unrest.

Physically block these avenues. Go to DC and block senators from going in. Not just holding up signs.
 
Did anyone else listen to Evan McMullin on Keepin It 1600 the other day? I have to imagine I'd disagree with him on virtually every policy point, but I came away actually kind of liking him, personality-wise. He was good conversation.
He seems pretty likable from today's Republican standards, but after checking his stance on many issues I realized he's still super far to the right and we do not see eye to eye on anything.
 
More YouGov fun! I'm open to seeing any other numbers, but this seems to be some of the more easily accessible data on these kinds of topics. Of course, if anyone has any other data that contradicts this, I'm open to seeing it. Unfortunately there's some missing data on other issues such as criminal justice, so I would be curious to see any numbers on that.

In May 2016, people who preferred Clinton and considered gay rights not very important or unimportant: 32%
people who preferred Sanders who considered gay rights not very important or unimportant: 23%

Clinton supporters were more likely to support an amendment allowing states to ban gay marriage than Sanders supporters (25% to 16%), and Sanders supporters were more likely to oppose it (77% to 63%)

The most important issue for both Clinton and Sanders supporters is the economy (19% and 18%, respectively). For those who consider gay rights the most important issue, Clinton supporters are at 4%, and Sanders supporters are at 2%. For those who consider immigration the most important issue, Clinton supporters are at 2% and Sanders supporters are at 1%.

The issue by far that Black primary voters cared most about was Social Security (24%), with the economy second (17%). Hispanic primary voters cared most about the economy (30%), with immigration second (15%).

The "dislike" percentage for Blacks, Hispanics, and every other non-white demographic (11%, 28%, 40%, respectively) was higher for Clinton than it was for Sanders (5%, 11%, 11%), though both were well-liked overall.

More Black people thought Clinton cared about POC than Sanders (71% vs. 65%) and more Black people thought Sanders did not care about POC compared to Clinton (17% to 13%). But more Hispanics thought Sanders cared about people of color than Clinton did (67% vs. 58%). Other non-white demographics also agreed Sanders cares about POC more than Clinton (63% to 41%)

By a slight margin (45%-43%), black folks support single-payer at a higher rate than white people (though there is a bigger "not sure" percentage for black people). Weirdly enough, all the 65+ people who qualify for Medicare are the least likely age group to support single-payer, and the most likely to oppose it. 60% of Clinton supporters also supported single-payer.

Black (56%), Hispanic (57%), and non-white (58%) majorities supported tuition-free college. White people are the least likely to support it (only 38%)

Clinton supporters were more likely to see Immigration as very important or important (84%) compared to Sanders supporters (71%). Trump supporters at the time were at 97%.

Clinton supporters were more likely to support a border wall (27%) than Sanders supporters (22%). Sanders supporters were also more likely to oppose it (72% to 66%)

Majorities of both Clinton supporters (72%) and Sanders supporters (69%) believe in someone who should be willing to compromise to get things done.

A higher percentage of Clinton supporters (18% to 14%) think illegal immigrants should be required to leave the US.

There's a lot of other data that's relevant to this topic as well. But overall, the polling data at the time did seem to show a preference for Clinton by black folks (though Sanders is still strong), and a preference for Sanders with every other POC. And on the issues that are generally seen as specifically "minority" issues, it's mostly a wash between Clinton/Sanders supporters. And of course, on the issues that people claim Sanders spends too much time on...those are the issues minorities (and everyone else!) care about the most.

So at least this data, taken during the primary (back when Sanders was supposedly "damaging the party" and supposedly everyone hated him, which is why I picked this date) doesn't seem to match that the idea that minorities are turned off by Sanders, or that they don't care about the issues Sanders and his supporters care about or that Sanders supporters in huge numbers somehow care less about the issues minorities care about. It also doesn't seem to show Sanders supporters as hating on compromise, FWIW.

So, while your concerns on a personal level are obviously not mythical (I can't change how you feel personally, obviously), the idea that your view is a common trend among minorities overall (which seems to be a popular viewpoint in a lot of online circles) does seem to be false. Again, I'm open to seeing any other data that shows the opposite. Maybe this has all changed in recent weeks and minorities totally don't like Sanders anymore, and dislike his constant economic message, and are all lying to pollsters, but considering that majorities across all demographics (except rich people and Republicans) still have a favorable opinion of him, that would seem unlikely. And the "most important issue" numbers still hold up, even in more recent surveys. Everyone cares the most about economic and economic-related issues.

All this info certainly seems a bit different from the "only white people like him and his leftist views and a ton of his supporters want to throw minorities under the bus to talk about class all the time and minorities aren't trying to hear all that" viewpoint that seems to still be popular, but maybe I'm missing something.

I think the far more boring and accurate assessment is that Sanders talks about economic issues a lot because everyone cares primarily about economic issues, across all demographics. People are welcome to call him a "one issue candidate" because of this, but it certainly seems like people are "one issue voters", by that standard. And the issues that are considered "minority" issues, Sanders supporters are more likely to support the progressive views on those, (as mentioned, it'd be good to see numbers on criminal justice, since that's a big missing piece I haven't been able to find yet).

Wow. All this T with RECEIPTS. Thanks for this man. Will come in handy.
 

kirblar

Member
Thats what I mean.

Stop people from going to work by creating human blockades. Block Wall St. Go to Trump Tower and just go and create a human blockade. Thats what I mean by protest/civil unrest.

Physically block these avenues. Go to DC and block senators from going in. Not just holding up signs.
This is not going to happen. You will be removed (and rightfully so.)
 
I get why people like Kander so much but he just won't be ready in 2020. Missouri Secretary of State is not a position that qualifies one for the presidency. He's only 35; he has plenty of time to beef up his resume but 2020 is too soon.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
https://twitter.com/NPRinskeep/status/809411698713120768



"One of his first actions after being elected was to give Carrier $16.5m to lay off more workers after promising he'd keep their jobs" *video of Trump saying they'd keep their jobs* *sepia-toned video of closed plant* *sepia-toned video of people looking at bills shaking their heads*

This would require people at the DNC to actually know how to run an effective marketing campaign today, which seems to not be the case at this juncture.

I get why people like Kander so much but he just won't be ready in 2020. Missouri Secretary of State is not a position that qualifies one for the presidency. He's only 35; he has plenty of time to beef up his resume but 2020 is too soon.

Is this satire? You do realize who just won the election?
 

WaffleTaco

Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
Thats what I mean.

Stop people from going to work by creating human blockades. Block Wall St. Go to Trump Tower and just go and create a human blockade. Thats what I mean by protest/civil unrest.

Physically block these avenues. Go to DC and block senators from going in. Not just holding up signs.
And that's how you get America to go against you.
 

Blader

Member
I know this sounds crazy, but I care whether the president is actually qualified to hold the office.

So do I, but enough Americans don't.

And that includes Democrats do. Bernie may have been a career politician, but a lot of his supporters -- who make up a substantial portion of the base -- did not give a shit and would've just as well voted for him if he had never been in politics a day in his life.
 
So do I, but enough Americans don't.

And that includes Democrats do. Bernie may have been a career politician, but a lot of his supporters -- who make up a substantial portion of the base -- did not give a shit and would've just as well voted for him if he had never been in politics a day in his life.



My point is that I don't just care about electability. I also care about how well someone will perform the duties of the office. That said, I do think Kander's youth and inexperience would hurt him in a 2020 run. The argument that Trump's business experience qualifies him for the presidency is bullshit, but people bought it. I think Missouri Secretary of State is a harder sell to the American people.
 

Grexeno

Member
My number one thing in 2020 will be quite simple: do I think they can beat Donald Trump in the general. If Kander is that guy, then so be it.
 
Trump had a national profile prior to his run. He was world infamous. And he was a master bullshitter that could paint himself as a super successful businessman.

Pretending Kander with no national level office is comparable is just foolish.

Also, one of the many post election narratives is to replicate Trump. I'm not sure where this comes from. You can't out-Trump him. He has the better product, red ocean.
 
On another note: who has a list of Trump's cabinet picks and their ties to white nationalism, lgbt phobia, and racism?

At face value, a lot of people are seeing very successful business men being picked for cabinet with the view that Trump is filling said cabinet with people like this to run the country as a business (which it is). On the flip side, we see the straight lines between a lot of these picks and all these social issue baggages they carry.

What is the deal here? Is this a coincidence or is there a direct correlation drawn now between multi millionaires and billionaires and their respective outlook on minorities?

This continues to be all very confusing to me.

I think only a few have a history with racism like Sessions and Steve. Flynn and some others are crazy when it comes Islam. I think many of them are against gay marriage though.

Rich people are as vulnerable like every other human being. The difference is a vast number are privileged meaning they have little to no interaction with outside groups. I don't think many of them have a hatred type of racism, but the ignorant form because the lack of interaction. I also don't believe running the country like a business is a good idea.
 
Trump had a national profile prior to his run. He was world infamous. And he was a master bullshitter that could paint himself as a super successful businessman.

Pretending Kander with no national level office is comparable is just foolish.

Also, one of the many post election narratives is to replicate Trump. I'm not sure where this comes from. You can't out-Trump him. He has the better product, red ocean.

This is spot on. Kander has a lot of positives, but that doesn't make him the best candidate for 2020 or even a particularly strong one. Expecting experience not to matter at all is an overreaction to this election. It is also rather short-sighted not to worry about how qualified the candidate is. A bad presidency can do lasting damage to a party's prospects going forward.
 
The idea that protests and civil unrest are the only/best way of fighting this are juvenile and antiquated.

What is holding a sign up going to do? Shouting at people on the street? What possible attention could you bring to this that isn't already being showered upon it?

And before anyone brings up Standing Rock -the protestors had leverage there. They were physically blocking construction.
The immigration protests in 2006 achieved their job, we haven't had meaningful immigration reform but it kept the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 from being passed. Or BLM, which has radically changed the national conversation about police issues.

There's plenty of examples of civil disobedience working in the past, this just sounds like you have a bone to pick with the activist left.
 
This is spot on. Kander has a lot of positives, but that doesn't make him the best candidate for 2020 or even a particularly strong one. Expecting experience not to matter at all is an overreaction to this election. It is also rather short-sighted not to worry about how qualified the candidate is. A bad presidency can do lasting damage to a party's prospects going forward.
I feel like this has been said numerous times in this thread in some way and yet it all goes back to Bush and the fact that the Republican's haven't seemingly suffered from the damage his Presidency did. Sure, they lost in 2008, but by 2010 they picked up Congress and held it through 2014 which then lead to them taking the House and Senate. Now they have all three branches and nobody seemingly learned anything from the Bush administration.
 

kirblar

Member
The immigration protests in 2006 achieved their job, we haven't had meaningful immigration reform but it kept the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 from being passed. Or BLM, which has radically changed the national conversation about police issues.

There's plenty of examples of civil disobedience working in the past, this just sounds like you have a bone to pick with the activist left.
No, I have a bone to pick with stupid ideas. I have a problem with "movements" based on whining and complaining rather than actually building and achieving something. I have a problem with people who claim to support you but who always let you down in the end.

Trying to shut down congress in response to a Trump presidency is dumb. It is not a good idea. It is a complete waste of people's time, money, and energy. If you try to block people from doing their jobs there, you will not be there anymore. It will not be tolerated (and shouldn't be.) And shutting down Wall Street? We saw how well a bunch of upper-class kids camping out with a lot of time and money to burn worked out last time. (spoiler: it didn't, nothing changed.)

The immigration protests had very specific goals in mind they were trying to achieve- stopping the legislation. Standing Rock had a very specific goal that they were trying to achieve - the pipeline being moved. BLM wanted to draw attention. They were proactive- they were working towards something. This is not about protest as a negative- it can be a very good thing. It can draw attention. It can get you help. Combined with leverage it can get you results on the spot. But it's a tool, not a one-size-fits-all strategy.

The Wall St/Congress suggestions? Destructive. They want to destroy and then "we'll figure the rest out later." No. That's the mentality of a toddler seeing a lego structure it doesn't like. Or Godzilla seeing a building. That is the mentality of radicals. That is not the mentality of the party I want to support. I don't want to burn it down society, I want to reform it. I want to transform it. I want to make it something better than it is. Believe it or not, despite a lot of things being bad, a lot of things do work well (relative to other countries!)

So if someone prefers to go "Hey I'm gonna hold a sign outside the capitol for two months" in a peacock-like display of how angry they are instead of working towards some sort of concrete and constructive goal, yes, I am going to have a bone to pick with them. But that's not "the activist left" as a whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom