Calling a campaign that up to election night assumed by all its internal metrics was absolutely going to lose a smart campaign is something else really. But history is written by winners so /shrug.
-
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
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
whyamihere
Banned
I mean, the Trump campaign did some things right. We should acknowledge that.
But also, campaigns might just not matter that much.
At the same time it's looking like there was a huge swing in the rust belt at the very last second, 538 had a piece on some of what they're seeing today and it's really looking like the bottom fell out at the last minute for the Clinton campaign.
Just seems weird to me that the campaign TOTALLY took that area for granted. Not only in visits (know she was in PA a fair bit), but also in the messaging and voter interaction. Just seems weird to assume that because you have a 5 pt lead, that is sufficient comfort to try and run up the score in other areas. Utah, AZ, GA... sigh.
If anyone knows about obstruction, it's Ted Cruz. Seriously though, is this guy even relevant at this point?
Peter Mayhew?
They were up by like 7 in the area for what was essentially the entire campaign and Trump had no shot at catching them, why would you invest time and money into an area where you were running away with it? In hindsight we can say they should have spent more time there, but going off what they knew at the time there wasn't much reason to go to Michigan or Wisconsin.
Here's the article I was talking about: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rump-at-the-last-minute/?ex_cid=story-twitter
It's not a definitive study, those will come later, but I have a feeling that what they found here is going to be what they find in the autopsy: the race shifted at the last minute due to factors unknowable and the whole thing fell apart.
RastaMentality
Banned
Ted Cruz literally serves 0 purpose now with a republican congress and no presidential aspirations lol.
But muh courageous conservatism! We faced down the odds and duked it out against the liberal media machine and won
a phone booth in the Trump campaign.
Really if Ted fades into obscurity I have no qualms with it. Undoubtedly him and he Freedom Caucus will still be out here shitting on everything for not being far enough to the fringe for even the GOP.
No, he's going to be Trump's punching bag for the next two years. Plus he needs someone to exact his revenge against, watch Trump campaign against him in the midterm election.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The only bright spot here. The guy literally thought he was the next Reagan (lost in the primary, come back 4 years later and beat the democrat) and Trump destroyed that dream.
That's why I can't really hate on Clinton too much for 'not campaigning enough'
Everything suggested that she already had more than what she needed on lock down. Why would she spend resources where she didn't need to? It's only in hindsight at best that we recognize this wasn't the best decision. And in a normal election, this wouldn't have been an issue.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Cross-posting from the OT thread, but the Net Neutrality elimination is going to be a HUGE gift to democrats in 2018/2020. Take away a Millennial's Internet and make people pay more for Netflix, and they're going to be energized to vote.
I'm not being sarcastic, either. It is a priority for a large amount of people right now.
I'm not being sarcastic, either. It is a priority for a large amount of people right now.
Both are inconvenient truths. Hillary barely campaigned compared to the rookie Trump whether it was rallies or media presence, and even Obama has called out Hillary's lazy ass. There's no worthwhile excuse for skipping Wisconsin, or shitting on politics 101 by not putting in the effort, particularly after the Michigan polls. But to be fair it is a problem for the Democratic party as whole, they are especially garbage at the local levels.
Not to mention Hillary's all-time deplorable ratings and being hounded by the FBI. Such an arrogant gamble.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Abinash117
Member
Assuming Democrats are smart enough utilize the anger and assuming a lot of voters aren't duped into believing Republicans who will spin it as positive.
This assumes Democrats will bother with it.
Box of Kittens
Banned
One thing I find notable is how much the discourse today reminds me of the period immediately after Bush's re-election. Today, as then, there was talk of Permanent Republican Majority because Bush & Rove (today, Trump & Bannon) have found the "secret sauce" to get a majority, at least in the Electoral College, regardless of performance in office (never mind that there is ample evidence from political science to the contrary). Bush's plan to privatize Social Security was sure to pass, and suffer no backlash, because Fox News would sell it to the brainwashed masses as reform (just like with the Trump/Ryan plans for Medicare/SS today). We're also having similar conversations about the rural vote. And then, as now, the standard rebuttal to the notion that the current political situation won't last is "this time is different" for pretty much all the same reasons.
plagiarize
Banned
Once it's in place, I don't see how you can keep on spinning it as a positive.
TestOfTide
Banned
I know I am late on this, but I am really getting tired of people wasting their political energy on getting rid of the EC. That's requires a constitutional amendment and if Democrats end up at a point where they can pass amendments, then they won't even need to get rid of the EC anyway.
A much, MUCH better approach would be to advocate for repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
This would have not just one, but 3 Major Benefits:
1) It would give more representation in the House for Blue States (because lifting or raising the cap would give more seats mostly to blue states).
2) Because of 1, bigger states would be better represented in the EC.
3) It would give more democrats a chance to get federal government experience, thus increasing our bench.
A much, MUCH better approach would be to advocate for repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
This would have not just one, but 3 Major Benefits:
1) It would give more representation in the House for Blue States (because lifting or raising the cap would give more seats mostly to blue states).
2) Because of 1, bigger states would be better represented in the EC.
3) It would give more democrats a chance to get federal government experience, thus increasing our bench.
Some fun Nate Cohn analysis on the NC turnout. Note, Durham has not came in yet, so he's removing Durham from the 2012 numbers as well so he can compare apples to apples
EDIT
Note: Trump still wins the election with this change. https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/810876142987177984
EDIT
Note: Trump still wins the election with this change. https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/810876142987177984
This strikes me as a new version of the "legalize marijuana and you'll win in a landslide" argument
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Marijuana isn't a major part of the daily lives of like 85-90% of Americans.
The way the internet is used by most people north of age 45-50 probably isn't going to be immediately impacted in a way that makes network neutrality some gigantic election winner.
The elimination of net neutrality could very easily mean shuffling people/youth towards sites that favour Republicans and the ideas promoted by their leaders, making for a major propaganda/brain-washing tool.
In the end you need to remember most people are passive and susceptible to their surroundings. I would not count on net neutrality's elimination doing any favours for Democrats.
In the end you need to remember most people are passive and susceptible to their surroundings. I would not count on net neutrality's elimination doing any favours for Democrats.
Third Strike
Member
Wasn't there a massive backlash against SOPA a few years ago? Google, Facebook, and other tech companies could cause some serious noise if we see something similar emerge.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Did I say it would be a "gigantic election winner?" Can anybody say anything in this thread without the extreme being assumed?
What's the difference between gigantic and huge
balladofwindfishes
Member
My 73 year old grandma uses Netflix
TestOfTide
Banned
It's not about how it will affect older people. It's about the fact that it will affect so many millenials that they will be VERY angry about it.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
What is the difference between "gift" and "election winner?"
excelsiorlef
Member
Betcha he loves Tulsi Gabbard though.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
I don't understand these people.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Saying Hillary isn't qualified, despite her very clear qualifications to be president, is just outright sexism
But the "true" liberals don't really care about feminism, so they'll just keep on pushing that garbage
But the "true" liberals don't really care about feminism, so they'll just keep on pushing that garbage
You did say huge. I don't know why you're mad about this.
Nothing if nobody votes over it.
The worst of getting rid of network neutrality would likely be phased in over time. Your grandmother may use Netflix as much as your average cord cutter does, but I'd be surprised is most or many grandmothers do. What comes from getting rid of NN at first is likely to disproportionately affect those who vote the least.
And post memes about it? Until young people vote in numbers that matter, who cares if they're mad?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Many of them don't care about ideology so much as they just want a rabble rouser.
Look at how Tim Canova took off in some circles even though he wasn't particularly liberal. Who cares, let's just stick it to the establishment.
"I want to be mad" is a problem.
Nah, the telecoms will approach it slowly to ease us into it. As they have been doing. Most people won't notice and then we'll look back after it's too late.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Because basic reading comprehension and vocabulary understanding is apparently lacking and I'm being accused of saying something I never did.
I did say "huge gift." A present. The republicans handing democrats an instant topic to attack them on. One thing to use in the campaigns.
That in no sense of the word ever equates to "gigantic election winner," which I was accused of saying.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Perhaps the silver lining is that it's being ushered in by way of the craziest motherfucking lunatics who have no sense of subtlety whatsoever. Democrats will have to take a page from the Republican playbook and engage in the most theatrical legislative resistance possible, or they can just roll over and die.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Also we need a better name than "Net Neutrality". People hear that and it immediately puts them to sleep. "Fair internet" or "internet freedom" or something.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Unfortunately even if Sanders had been elected, I can only imagine the number of his supporters who would turn on him on a dime when they realize a president can't just fart their agenda into existence. Something like single-payer would have a very hard time passing a Dem Congress (if not impossible), much less a Ryan/McConnell-led one.
Ten million college students are going to rally outside their offices? Cute. Seems far more likely they'd sit at home during the midterms because Bernie "betrayed" them. Because their expectation would still be that a president CAN fart their agenda in existence, they only choose not to. If a president can't get something done, it's just proof that they never really supported it to begin with. No, it can't just be the logistics of getting 218 + 51 (60, in reality) people plus a few very specific people along the way (Senate majority leader, Speaker of the House, various committee chairmen, five SCOTUS justices if it goes to court) to all agree on something.
See: That one guy who says Democrats should completely drop abortion because "it distracts attention from real issues".
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I think the idea many are proposing is that net neutrailty will be an issue that makes millennials mad enough to vote. Which I think has at least a little merit, although I expect there will be a lot in this upcoming presidency that pushes that generation to vote.
- Status