Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

how much of Bill's ability to get away with scandals was actually his own charisma?

A lot.

 

[royalan]

how much of Bill's ability to get away with scandals was actually his own charisma?

That was THE reason.

 

[RustyNails]

Look at it this way—it's a failure of the entire world that it requires the US to give a rats' ass about Israel and Palestine to actually do something about it. Trump ain't gonna' help, but as much as people bellyache about the US being the world's police they really don't do shit besides complain about us.

I don't see it as the burden of world's failures falling on USA' shoulders. But rather the massive influence US has in the world stage not being used to correct the wrong. Trump is going to use this influence to fuck the Palestinians over. I would say US was "Lawful Evil" on Israel-Palestine issue (biased toward Israel). But under Trump it will be Chaotic Evil.

 

[aspiegamer]

I love the abstract arms race talk! The US, by far the youngest nation that is a top world player, is going to outlast everyone else? Yes, the US is going to outlast freaking China (as the first thing that came to mind)? Or outlast the people who've been fighting for holy lands in the middle east for literally thousands of years? Hah. Guess we'll always have Canada and Australia to look down on at least.

I like Booker. I think a Booker/Franken ticket has some potential.

Flip the ticket and you've got my full support. Not sure of Booker could survive a Trump negativity machine intact, where Franken could easily laugh that stuff off.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I don't see it as the burden of world's failures falling on USA' shoulders. But rather the massive influence US has in the world stage not being used to correct the wrong. Trump is going to use this influence to fuck the Palestinians over. I would say US was "Lawful Evil" on Israel-Palestine issue (biased toward Israel). But under Trump it will be Chaotic Evil.

The DnD descriptors are interesting. I basically think the GOP is Lawful Evil, and folks like Trump are chaotic evil. I'd say Sanders is Chaotic Good, and Clinton would be Lawful Good. Libertarians are playing Pathfinder.

 

[Debirudog]

I'm a little wary of Booker eventhough he's got charisma as hot as the sun. I guess I'll rather play it safe with someone that has little to no scandals, and with social media and the rapid display of information-I'm not quite sure if Booker can survive through the scrutiny.

 

[Diablos]

I'm a little wary of Booker eventhough he's got charisma as hot as the sun. I guess I'll rather play it safe with someone that has little to no scandals.

Yeah because scandals prevented Trump from winning...

 

[Debirudog]

Yeah because scandals prevented Trump from winning...

Democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line.

and would justify anything Trump does.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Yeah because scandals prevented Trump from winning...

Our base is the one that gets pissy over stuff like this. Not theirs. Their base knows how to get shit done.

It's why I'm tentatively on the Kamala train. She's new so she doesn't have a record of compromise, and she has that as an excuse for why she has no real successes on her resume. Clinton failed the former, and Sanders failed the latter. Kamala has cover with the youths.

 

[dramatis]

how much of Bill's ability to get away with scandals was actually his own charisma?

There was an anecdote in a podcast about Clinton when Gingrinch went into the Oval Office to talk with Clinton and then somewhere along the line he stuck his head out and begged someone to help him, that he was helpless in there against Clinton's charm.

lol

 

[kirblar]

Our base is the one that gets pissy over stuff like this. Not theirs. Their base knows how to get shit done.

It's why I'm tentatively on the Kamala train. She's new so she doesn't have a record of compromise, and she has that as an excuse for why she has no real successes on her resume. Clinton failed the former, and Sanders failed the latter. Kamala has cover with the youths.

She also has her progressive resume bona fides shored up beforehand - she doesn't have to actually defend anything for the most part, so she can play to the center immediately.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Wall Street

Charter schools

Easy to attack as self serving due to his PR antics

Progressives will hate him and it will turn into Clinton v Sanders Pt. II

Support for charter schools - as long as they are public and not for profit - wouldn't hurt him very much at all.

Just about every city in this country has a robust charter school network (some more than others). They're more popular than you think amongst Democratic demographics.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

It's not that he supports charter schools, it's that he bungled large amounts of money for them when he was mayor of Newark.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Our base is the one that gets pissy over stuff like this. Not theirs. Their base knows how to get shit done.

It's why I'm tentatively on the Kamala train. She's new so she doesn't have a record of compromise, and she has that as an excuse for why she has no real successes on her resume. Clinton failed the former, and Sanders failed the latter. Kamala has cover with the youths.

Do they though?

Trump had no public record. He was able to lie his ass off about previously supporting single-payer, the Iraqi war etc because he's never borne any responsibility for those things. Compare that to candidates like Rubio who were raked across the coals for supporting immigration reform.

Remember that the conservative post-mortems for McCain and Romney was that they were dirty moderates when that was plainly untrue. I think you just need to find someone charismatic enough and more importantly someone who'll win.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm aboard the Kamala train as well. Dig up my post history from 2009 and I was ready to board the Kamala tain in 2016 back then.

But I think the landscape has changed since then. She will face an even steeper uphill battle than Hillary faced on account of her being biracial AND a woman. Trump has ionized the racists by removing all the importing thing and focusing only on race politic. It will be hard to bring these activated ions back into the grand, ideal "Obama Coalition". Besides, she might get labeled as part of "establishment" by Bernie wing.

Yet she is a smart person personally approved by Obama. Her credentials are mindblowing. I am sure she will learn from where Hillary faltered.

 

[Hillary Clinton]

I think the history students of tomorrow will chuckle when they read primary sources detailing our fears and find that we related everything to Star Wars this year as much as people in the 70s thought of everything in terms of Communism.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Can we get Obama to run for governor of Illinois and Bill for governor of Arkansas?

 

[Cybit]

There was an anecdote in a podcast about Clinton when Gingrinch went into the Oval Office to talk with Clinton and then somewhere along the line he stuck his head out and begged someone to help him, that he was helpless in there against Clinton's charm.

lol

Pretty much. That dude's flat out charm puts even Obama's to shame. Clinton got away with a whole lot of stuff because that dude could charm the pants off anyone. (Which indirectly speaks highly of Hillary Clinton, because that guy could have had anyone he wanted and he went with her)

It's not that he supports charter schools, it's that he bungled large amounts of money for them when he was mayor of Newark.

Like 200 million dollars worth IIRC. (From Zuckerberg IIRC)

 

[Particle Physicist]

Data show Trump..strengthening US recovery



How can anyone vote against the most pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family plan put forth perhaps in the history of our country? Not looking good for the democrats I tell you what

Giving Trump credit for Obama's work before Trump
even takes office. Haha.

 

[TestOfTide]

I'm aboard the Kamala train as well. Dig up my post history from 2009 and I was ready to board the Kamala tain in 2016 back then.

But I think the landscape has changed since then. She will face an even steeper uphill battle than Hillary faced on account of her being biracial AND a woman. Trump has ionized the racists by removing all the importing thing and focusing only on race politic. It will be hard to bring these activated ions back into the grand, ideal "Obama Coalition". Besides, she might get labeled as part of "establishment" by Bernie wing.

Yet she is a smart person personally approved by Obama. Her credentials are mindblowing. I am sure she will learn from where Hillary faltered.

I doubt Trump will be able to get those racists out in droves like he did this year when he fails to build that wall and fails to get that Muslim ban going. The racists are going to be disappointed and not show up in such numbers like they did this year.

Also, honestly I think it might actually be EASIER for a non-white woman to win than a white woman.

And yes, I read up on her history. She is THE perfect candidate to have run on Criminal Justice Reform and Drug Policy Reform.

 

[dynamitejim]

My shitty hot take:

Obama would have lost a lot of the same Rust Belt counties Clinton did if he had run for a third term against Trump. Black Lives Matter spooked a lot of white people in those communities and they were only ok with a Black President so long as Black people in general weren't actively asserting their lives were worth something.

 

[dramatis]

Well, he definitely would have lost Florida.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trump posts way more like a Putin fanboy than a Putin stooge... Which means that when Putin "disrespects" Trump in the future, that's going to have very bad consequences because Trump will feel betrayed and he takes betrayal very badly...

Vladimir Putin said today about Hillary and Dems: "In my opinion, it is humiliating. One must be able to lose with dignity." So true!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812450976670121985

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

My shitty hot take:

Obama would have lost a lot of the same Rust Belt counties Clinton did if he had run for a third term against Trump. Black Lives Matter spooked a lot of white people in those communities and they were only ok with a Black President so long as Black people in general weren't actively asserting their lives were worth something.

The fact that Obama's approval rating is above 50 and Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million votes would go along with this, too, I think.

 

[Wilsongt]

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

Vladimir Putin said today about Hillary and Dems: "In my opinion, it is humiliating. One must be able to lose with dignity." So true!
7:13 PM · Dec 23, 2016

 

[mo60]

Trump aching to fuck Palestinians over is what got me most depressed lately. I mean he's already going to fuck the minorites in US and ride the growing Obama economy. That's already depressing as it is. But screwing over that part of the land will be the easiest recruitment ISIS and lone wolf types will ever dream to have.

Trump in general is technically the biggest thing ISIS can use to recruit more fighters.

And is trump seriously copying vladimir putin now.

 

[Cybit]

Has anyone looked at rand paul Twitter?

I got quite a chuckle

Holy crap, this is amazing.

I got my master's earlier this year. It's more complicated than this. So, pretty much every economist will agree that free trade boosts GDP per capita for developed nations that have proper protections for emergent industries and anti-competitive practices. But GDP per capita isn't the end of the story. If you remove the government from the picture, trade has winners and losers. You're a loser if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative disadvantage in, and a winner if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative advantage in. If you add the winner's gain to the loser's losses, you'll get a positive number - that is, GDP per capita goes up. But the winner still won, and the loser definitely still lost - they're worse off than if there wasn't free trade. So while on average everyone wins, not every individual wins. The average American can get richer while the poorest American gets poorer - these are not contradictions.

So economists have the caveat: free trade is better than no free trade if the losers are compensated with some of the winners' gains. If you can do that, you have a Pareto improvement. Everyone is at least as well off as they were before, some better off. So free trade is good. And this is a really basic principle of economics, understood at some level since Ricardo.

But in political terms, those caveats get ignored. The transfer system from capital (something America has a comparative advantage in) to labour, especially unskilled labour (something America has a comparative disadvantage in) has got weaken over time - not stronger. Instead, you get politicians saying that free trade is good in and of itself for everyone. This isn't true; it has to be harnessed appropriately. As it is, it is probably true that reducing free trade in some specific markets and industries would actually be better for the American poor than the status quo. Less good than keeping free trade and improving redistribution, but better than free trade without redistribution.

Now, I am strongly in favour of {free trade, redistribution}. But if redistribution is not feasible, then I would prefer {no free trade, no redistribution} to {free trade, no redistribution}. So for me to back the free trade candidate, I need to be persuaded they actually care about the American poor. Normally I am persuaded, although I'm not always convinced my faith is rewarded. But that caveat has to be made clear.

Pretty much

The government has a program where the Dept of Labor retrain and relocated workers that lose their job from trade called the Trade Adjustment Assistance Enhancement Act, which got renewed through 2021 last year and had a budget of $664 million for 2016.

Unfortunately, a lot of people fall through the cracks and don't get in the program, and the ones that do on average make less than they would otherwise. The Herritage Foundation and many republicans want to use that fact to get rid of it altogether. Meanwhile, a lot of free trade liberals like to talk up the program like it solves all the problems with trade.

It's a difficult problem to sort out.

Part of the issue is that you can teach people those skills, but you need those jobs to actually be in the area, and that is something that tends to get people all riled up (since those jobs would be taken away from the coastal areas most likely) and against it.

I was going to respond to this with an article from the Atlantic that mostly reiterates what Crab explained but I can't find it at all and now I'm in a complete psychological tailspin. Am I being gaslighted? Did The Atlantic take the article down under corporate pressure? How can I ever trust institutions again now that I am through the looking glass and tumbling out the overton window?

No, I read that article too.

My shitty hot take:

Obama would have lost a lot of the same Rust Belt counties Clinton did if he had run for a third term against Trump. Black Lives Matter spooked a lot of white people in those communities and they were only ok with a Black President so long as Black people in general weren't actively asserting their lives were worth something.

The fact that Obama's approval rating is above 50 and Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million votes would go along with this, too, I think.

Doubtful. From the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/u...on-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html

The exit polls also show all of the signs that Mr. Trump was winning over Obama voters. Perhaps most strikingly, Mr. Trump won 19 percent of white voters without a degree who approved of Mr. Obama’s performance, including 8 percent of those who “strongly” approved of Mr. Obama’s performance and 10 percent of white working-class voters who wanted to continue Mr. Obama’s policies.

Mr. Trump won 20 percent of self-identified liberal white working-class voters, according to the exit polls, and 38 percent of those who wanted policies that were more liberal than Mr. Obama’s.

The article's pretty enlightening, and has some much more concrete numbers on what happened in NC. Basically, flipped union voters from Trump to Obama (after they probably voted for Clinton and GWB as well), and young black turnout was really bad (ages 40 and below)

Interesting point though, in that it may indicate we have a turnout problem rather than a policy problem

But the preliminary Upshot analysis of voting returns, census and pre-election polling data suggests that Mrs. Clinton was stronger among well-educated white and nonwhite voters than the exit polls imply.

It is important to emphasize that these estimates are preliminary. They will change over the next few years with more data from the Census Bureau and additional polling. But it nonetheless paints an alternative picture that’s more consistent with the actual results, pre-election polls and the consensus of academics and campaign analysts on the electorate.

The Upshot estimates suggest that Mrs. Clinton really might have become the first Democrat to win white voters with a college degree (although it is very possible that Mr. Obama did so in 2008 as well).

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Free trade is much better to support as a candidate because trade wars hurt old people and old people vote.

 

[Debirudog]

I'm aboard the Kamala train as well. Dig up my post history from 2009 and I was ready to board the Kamala tain in 2016 back then.

But I think the landscape has changed since then. She will face an even steeper uphill battle than Hillary faced on account of her being biracial AND a woman. Trump has ionized the racists by removing all the importing thing and focusing only on race politic. It will be hard to bring these activated ions back into the grand, ideal "Obama Coalition". Besides, she might get labeled as part of "establishment" by Bernie wing.

Yet she is a smart person personally approved by Obama. Her credentials are mindblowing. I am sure she will learn from where Hillary faltered.

The far left would forever lose my respect if they diss Kamala Harris who has a strong record on criminal justice reform.

 

[mo60]

So according to that nyt article the best way for democrats to win the 2020 presidential election is to strengthen their hold on the voters they gained in this election, get weaker trump supporters to vote for the next presidential candidate and to attract the AA voters and other minorities that did not vote for hilary in this election.

 

[Grexeno]

So according to that nyt article the best way for democrats to win the 2020 presidential election is to strengthen their hold on the voters they gained in this election, get weaker trump supporters to vote for the next presidential candidate and to attract the AA voters and other minorities that did not vote for hilary in this election.

Yeah sounds about right

 

[mo60]

Also, wow at what carl paladino did recently
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/n...-insults-at-michelle-obama.html?_r=0&referer=

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

Vladimir Putin said today about Hillary and Dems: "In my opinion, it is humiliating. One must be able to lose with dignity." So true!
7:13 PM · Dec 23, 2016

Europe is so screwed. It's Russia's, if they want it.

 

[Debirudog]

Also, wow at what carl paladino did recently
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/n...-insults-at-michelle-obama.html?_r=0&referer=

Shit swarmed by flies.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So according to that nyt article the best way for democrats to win the 2020 presidential election is to strengthen their hold on the voters they gained in this election, get weaker trump supporters to vote for the next presidential candidate and to attract the AA voters and other minorities that did not vote for hilary in this election.

It's not clear to me that they can necessarily hold all of their votes now and appeal to weaker Trump voters and appeal to minorities, all at the same time. All of those groups want different things.

 

[mo60]

It's not clear to me that they can necessarily hold all of their votes now and appeal to weaker Trump voters and appeal to minorities, all at the same time. All of those groups want different things.

They don't need to attract all trump voters especially the culture warriors ones. They should try to attract the ones that may be affected negatively by trump and the republicans policies in the next 4 years like the ones that may be hurt by what the republicans and trump may do with Obamacare.

 

[Good Job Bob]

It's not clear to me that they can necessarily hold all of their votes now and appeal to weaker Trump voters and appeal to minorities, all at the same time. All of those groups want different things.

Obama did it?

 

[VendettaRed07]

So according to that nyt article the best way for democrats to win the 2020 presidential election is to strengthen their hold on the voters they gained in this election, get weaker trump supporters to vote for the next presidential candidate and to attract the AA voters and other minorities that did not vote for hilary in this election.

Also increased support from young voters.

Only getting low to mid 50s support from young people isn't nearly good enough an honestly probably the biggest contributor to the loss.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Obama did it?

No - as the article points out, Clinton made gains with wealthy Republicans over Obama. I don't think you can appeal to them and minorities and poor whites all at the same time. Like, if you have poor whites, minorities, and rich whites, I think by and large you can only ever win 2 at any given time.

 

[Debirudog]

The kind of Trump supporters, like that woman with her dying husband, need to be persuaded not to make the same mistake voting Trump. I don't think it's impossible.

 

[TestOfTide]

It's not clear to me that they can necessarily hold all of their votes now and appeal to weaker Trump voters and appeal to minorities, all at the same time. All of those groups want different things.

If the black guy accused of being a Muslim can do it, then it's definitely possible.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If the black guy accused of being a Muslim can do it, then it's definitely possible.

He didn't, though. Clinton made relatively large gains among wealthy whites, relative to Obama. Clinton's coalition wasn't just a trimmed version of Obama's, it was a different coalition altogether (also a losing one).

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm pretty sure Harris or Duckworth can get more white millennial support from weed legalization and they'll get more minority millennial support from not having any racist pasts (and being non-white themselves...).

And Trump will probably shed 65+ support if he goes after free trade or Medicare.

And that's enough for an election.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I do think you're underestimating how popular a trade war would make Trump. If it becomes a trade 'war' against China, people are going to want the big strongman who can protect them. They're not going to want to roll over for the yellow bastards like those pussy Democrats want to. And it'll be justified along exactly the same lines as Brexit - oh, it'll be tough for a few years, but in the future lie mystical golden days.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Yeah, it's going to be awesome watching our cost of living skyrocket as our wages stagnate.

 

[Debirudog]

I do think you're underestimating how popular a trade war would make Trump. If it becomes a trade 'war' against China, people are going to want the big strongman who can protect them. They're not going to want to roll over for the yellow bastards like those pussy Democrats want to. And it'll be justified along exactly the same lines as Brexit - oh, it'll be tough for a few years, but in the future lie mystical golden days.

Well, if it hurts them in the long run, would they still support him...

 

[Rebel Leader]

Well, if it hurts them in the long run, would they still support him...

It's all obamas fault

 

[Debirudog]

It's all obamas fault

I'm not sure how much he'll be able to get away from that.

 

[leroidys]

No - as the article points out, Clinton made gains with wealthy Republicans over Obama. I don't think you can appeal to them and minorities and poor whites all at the same time. Like, if you have poor whites, minorities, and rich whites, I think by and large you can only ever win 2 at any given time.

I think some of these "gains" can be attributed to disaffected Republicans who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump. A solid part of the republican base has always been rich white people that only care about their business and taxes, and Trump promised to blow up our current neoliberal economic policy.

See places like Bellevue WA and Orange County CA.

 

[Rebel Leader]

I'm not sure how much he'll be able to get away from that.

People still blame obama for the housing crisis... of which he had nothing to do with it

Withdrawing from iraq when bush signed an agreement