• 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.
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Brown was my first thought when I was shitting my pants the day after Trump and thought we were doomed without a Midwestern white dude but I've cooled on that a bit. Depending on the primary crop I might go for him anyways though.

And also fuck Zuckerberg, I hope he has the same level of success as Gilmore if he tries running.

Actually I guess my views on Brown is that he's the John Edwards candidate: seemingly grown in a tube to be the perfect counterweight to what lost us this election but we have no idea how relevant that will be in 4 years.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
The only way I wouldn't vote for Brown is if Franken ran.

Or if Trump got a serious primary challenger from the left (this is a relative term) in which case I would cross over.
 
N

numble

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Zuckerberg pretending he can be the Dem nominee in 2020 is the saddest shit I've ever seen.

Dude, Harris and Cortez Masto can say "you helped Donald Trump get elected" and the Zuckerberg campaign will be over. What a deluded man.
Click to expand...

I don't think he would win a national primary (for one thing, he would have just reached age 35 right before the primary), but I really don't think such an attack will work as much as you think. Facebook is still popular and Dems are not boycotting Facebook, and voters would be against Facebook censoring what they share with their friends.

Democratic candidates can attack Harris for accepting donations from Trump for her attorney general campaigns and declining to prosecute Trump University.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
numble said:
I don't think he would win a national primary (for one thing, he would have just reached age 35 right before the primary), but I really don't think such an attack will work as much as you think. Facebook is still popular and Dems are not boycotting Facebook, and voters would be against Facebook censoring what they share with their friends.

Democratic candidates can attack Harris for accepting donations from Trump for her attorney general campaigns and declining to prosecute Trump University.
Click to expand...

Zuckerberg also keeps up relationships with Peter Thiel: A wannabe vampire that no liberal likes because Thiel is an over the top bigot who hates women.
 
N

numble

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Zuckerberg also keeps up relationships with Peter Thiel: A wannabe vampire that no liberal likes because Thiel is an over the top bigot who hates women.
Click to expand...

I really don't think voters would care about that as much as you would think. I don't think he's even on anyone's radar? Do you have any data on public perceptions of Thiel? A YouGov poll found respondent's not caring much about his antics:
https://news.vice.com/article/most-americans-dont-care-that-peter-thiel-crushed-gawker
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
I think the bigger issue for Zuckerberg is that he'd be transparently a rich person inserting himself into politics because he can, which I doubt would go over well in a party where about 45% of it thought Clinton was too close to corporations.
 
N

numble

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
I think the bigger issue for Zuckerberg is that he'd be transparently a rich person inserting himself into politics because he can, which I doubt would go over well in a party where about 45% of it thought Clinton was too close to corporations.
Click to expand...

His path, if any, would not be to run for President at age 35. He would try for a California statewide office, and California's unique election system (open primaries, since 2011) gives him a path that might not be possible in other states. If he wants to run for Governor or if Feinstein retires her Senate seat, there is a crowded list of Dems that could go for those positions (Newsom, Chiang, Garcetti, Villaraigosa, Becerra, Padilla)--cannibalization amongst those candidates and appeal to Republicans (California Republicans seem to love tech executives, they nominated Caly Fiorina and Meg Whitman back to back) could allow him to emerge out of the pack. Like the recent Senate election, the general ballot would be Democrat vs. Democrat, and if he made it out of the primary, he would once again appeal to California Republicans while still being a D.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Holmes said:
Why? If there's no other Midwesterner, he'd have a good shot at doing well in Iowa, New Hampshire could go to Warren if she runs but he can still place well, then with South Carolina and the South, who knows.
Click to expand...

After three years of Trump, anti-free trade sentiment is not gonna be popular on the left.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Depends on how his term as governor goes, really. If he spends four years being run over by a GOP supermajority he doesn't have much going for him.

I'm really hoping Dems can win a majority in both state houses under fairer maps in the 2017 special elections - Democrats need to take any opportunity they can get. Long shot but between the VA, NJ and NC elections they could conceivably flip three split state governments into full Dem trifectas. Would be a great way for an incoming DNC chair to prove themselves. Just make sure to run a Democrat in every single district (especially if it's one that Clinton won - she won 51 of Virginia's House seats for example, when Democrats only hold 34) and not write anything off.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
VendettaRed07 said:
But then what? You can't win on the south alone. Losing out on NH and Iowa pretty much kills a campaigns chances imo. You need at least one. Or maybe finish top two in both or something.
Click to expand...
That's funny, the way I heard it was that this was the only way Clinton won last year.

California superdelegates Electoral College Breath of the Wild will save Bernie
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
whyamihere said:
lol imagine this:

Iowa: Brown
New Hampshire: Warren
Nevada: Cortez Masto
South Carolina: Cooper
Click to expand...
You had split decisions in the last two openings of the GOP primaries:
2012:
Iowa: Ron Paul (Santorum won straw poll)
NH: Romney
SC: Gingrich
FL: Romney
Same day (CO/MO/MN): Santorum won all three straw polls

2008:
Iowa: Huckabee
NH: McCain
MI: Romney
SC: McCain

Romney was more or less uncontested in Nevada both times. Got 51%.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
I think the bigger issue for Zuckerberg is that he'd be transparently a rich person inserting himself into politics because he can, which I doubt would go over well in a party where about 45% of it thought Clinton was too close to corporations.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what kind of dick would try to do that.

160px-Mike_Bloomberg_Headshot.jpg
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
17m
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Julian Assange said "a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta" - why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!

A rapist defending a rapist.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
AEI is against repeal and delay of ACA. I'm actually stunned.
 
M

mAcOdIn

Member
Plinko said:
AEI is against repeal of ACA. I'm actually stunned.
Click to expand...
They're not against repealing it, they're against repealing it without also having the explicit plan in place replacing it. They believe, rightfully so, that repealing it and then leaving it to the future to sort it out is much worse than just passing your new plan at the same time.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
The ACA and the insurance market is fucked for a good couple of years. The GOP are firmly wearing their "fuck you sick people" panties and they are going to ram through the repeal like Obama rammed through the law in the first place.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
mAcOdIn said:
They're not against repealing it, they're against repealing it without also having the explicit plan in place replacing it. They believe, rightfully so, that repealing it and then leaving it to the future to sort it out is much worse than just passing your new plan at the same time.
Click to expand...

Right--I edited my post to add "delay" as well.

https://twitter.com/CarolCNN/status/816651782239567873

American feelings about ACA:

66%: Keep, expand, or tweak law

26%: Repeal law
Click to expand...

As Joe Biden said, go ahead, republicans.


Craig Gilbert
‏@WisVoter

Ryan to Hewitt: Trump after Russia briefing will hopefully "get up to speed" on what Russia has/hasn't done and "be better informed on that"
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha...oh, Paul.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Bonen no Max'd said:
Double post but I think this is a big deal

5 years of an eight man SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

Gosh. But what if it's a "mainstream" candidate?

And what exactly can the minority party do to keep the vacancy open? Republicans succeeded at blocking Garland's nomination because they held a majority in the Senate. Had Republicans been in the minority during 2016, Democrats would have done what I expect Republicans will inevitably do--eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. Once that happens, what hope do the Democrats have?
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Zuckerberg pretending he can be the Dem nominee in 2020 is the saddest shit I've ever seen.

Dude, Harris and Cortez Masto can say "you helped Donald Trump get elected" and the Zuckerberg campaign will be over. What a deluded man.
Click to expand...

Is there evidence he is doing this for a POTUS run? I mean I agree he is obviously planning on running for office, but couldn't he run for governor or something else state level first?

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Brown's gonna get bodied if he tries.
Click to expand...

Brown or Whitehouse could be the next D nom's "Biden" though.
 
N

numble

Member
Metaphoreus said:
Gosh. But what if it's a "mainstream" candidate?

And what exactly can the minority party do to keep the vacancy open? Republicans succeeded at blocking Garland's nomination because they held a majority in the Senate. Had Republicans been in the minority during 2016, Democrats would have done what I expect Republicans will inevitably do--eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. Once that happens, what hope do the Democrats have?
Click to expand...
Not sure Republican Senators are interested in giving up the filibuster when, by design, there is always a chance that the Presidency would flip during their Senate term.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
numble said:
Not sure Republican Senators are interested in giving up the filibuster when, by design, there is always a chance that the Presidency would flip during their Senate term.
Click to expand...

That would be a stronger argument but for Democrats' eliminating the filibuster for other nominations in 2013. Now, eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations while Republicans hold power may make more sense than waiting for the Democrats to do it when they regain the presidency and Senate.
 
N

numble

Member
Metaphoreus said:
That would be a stronger argument but for Democrats' eliminating the filibuster for other nominations in 2013. Now, eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations while Republicans hold power may make more sense than waiting for the Democrats to do it when they regain the presidency and Senate.
Click to expand...
The Democrats preserved it for the same strong argument I stated. Why didn't they eliminate it in 2013 when they had both the Senate and the Presidency, the same situation the GOP is in today?
 
N

numble

Member
Grief.exe said:
They can always pull a North Carolina and remove the fillibuster now, only to put it back on when they leave power.
Click to expand...

It is different from the North Carolina situation--the GOP still controls the NC legislature. If they took it away and reinstituted right before a Democratic Senate came in, the reinstituted filibuster will go away when the Democrats come into power. If you mean to put it back in when there is a Democratic President and a GOP Senate, a filibuster isn't needed to block a SCOTUS nominee, because they can just vote the nominee down--Garland wasn't filibustered, he was just blocked due to the GOP being the majority. They want to preserve it to use in the situation where they are a minority party but still have a lot of leverage.
 
Z

Zyae

Member
kirblar said:
She didn't hijack the party. The "DNC" never had an iota of the control that the "Sanders was Robbed" narrative thinks it did. Obama viewed the DNC as an appendix, and was end-running around them every chance he could. That was where the problems ultimately stemmed from. Rather than invest in the party, he created his own "DNC", and it failed spectacularly.
Click to expand...

The lengths you guys go to absolving Clinton and the DNC is absurd.
 
D

dramatis

Member
Zyae said:
The lengths you guys go to absolving Clinton and the DNC is absurd.
Click to expand...
There's no lengths, it's just fact.

Not a single ounce of evidence is ever produced by the accusers when they are asked how the DNC supposedly forced 3 million more people to vote for Hillary over Sanders.
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
Would it be a bannable offense to start creating a list of pro-Russian posters and then post that list every time we have a new Russia thread?

Zyae said:
The lengths you guys go to absolving Clinton and the DNC is absurd.
Click to expand...

Except we HAVE called out where Hillary and the DNC have failed. We have agreed that Hillary's lack of campaigning in the rust belt and rural areas hurt her and the DNC abandoning the 50 state strategy hurt them.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
TestOfTide said:
Would it be a bannable offense to start creating a list of pro-Russian posters and then post that list every time we have a new Russia thread?
Click to expand...

Probably. Gaf went through this kind of thing during the height of the Ukraine invasion. Just keep those posters in mind and call them out when they inevitably start up.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
numble said:
The Democrats preserved it for the same strong argument I stated. Why didn't they eliminate it in 2013 when they had both the Senate and the Presidency, the same situation the GOP is in?
Click to expand...

Because they had no reason to. There was no Supreme Court nomination pending, nor was there any sign that a vacancy would occur anytime soon. It cost them nothing to carve out Supreme Court nominations and simply deal with them later.

It's also possible that they worried they might not be able to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations in that situation, since (PDF):

Congressional Research Service said:
nder Senate precedents, the presiding officer does not rule on a hypothetical situation[,]
Click to expand...


and they needed such a ruling to implement the nuclear option. They had non-Supreme Court judicial nominations and executive branch nominations pending, but they had no Supreme Court nomination pending. Really, if it were just concern that they would be limiting their own power in the event of a Republican-controlled Senate and White House, why would they have eliminated the filibuster for any nominations?
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
Veritigo_X said:
Probably. Gaf went through this kind of thing during the height of the Ukraine invasion. Just keep those posters in mind and call them out when they inevitably start up.
Click to expand...

Ok. I'll probably make the list anyway but won't post it.

At least I know that calling out the post history of users as they spew pro-Russian bullshit isn't a bannable offense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

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
Get well soon, @Ultrazilla
35
1K
ultrazilla replied
Top Bottom