• 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 |OT2| we love the poorly educated

Status
Not open for further replies.

NeoXChaos

Member
A sample to come. I know you guys are hungry.

Steve Koczela ‏@skoczela 2m2 minutes ago
Turnout as of noon, as a % of 2008 turnout in Boston.
26% in top 50 precincts for Dems.
40% in top 50 precincts for Reps.
 

Krowley

Member
That's just silly. Having primaries there is even more important, then, because it's the only way Democrats there will be able to voice their opinion about who they want as their next President.

Agree 100%, and I'm a huge Bernie supporter. That argument is obviously offensive and they need to shut up with it.

On the other hand, I do think super tuesday gives the south an outsized role in picking candidates in both parties. Any candidate that can't play in the south is gonna end up in a huge hole right out of the gate. The whole process needs an overhaul. States need to be shuffled around every time. Maybe a lottery to determine the order.
 

Ophelion

Member
I don't mean to be confrontational... but... yeah... In what world does Bernie have anything in common with the GOP? Him being lousy at race relations doesn't make him right wing all of a sudden.

Not to mention, in some horrible Mirror Universe where Bernie Sanders is a right-wing independent he would've been eaten alive in the friggin' shark tank that is the GOP primary race. Social Darwinism at its worst going on over there, man.
 

Tesseract

Banned
tumblr_mvpk1aurnt1sj04gto2_r1_500.gif
 

pigeon

Banned
I was trying to explain to my friend about why Cruz is probably way more mad at Trump than he is at Rubio, and here's the metaphor I came out with:

Basically, Cruz is the heel, and Rubio is the face, and they're having a cage match for the championship belt, and suddenly an ACTUAL STRANGE DUDE IN A MASK shows up and ACTUALLY SUPLEXES THE REFEREE.

And the audience is screaming and cheering and throwing shit but Cruz and Rubio are just standing next to each other in the ring going "oh shit, is that guy hurt?" "I dunno, can we call 911?" "Are we supposed to fight that guy?" "Fuck that, you go first."

That is what the GOP is.

The referee is Jeb, apparently.
 
but doing so isn't going to solve the problem with systemic racism.

Please show me the post I made where I said the economics will do this. I understand they're incarcerated at higher rates for things which whites are more likely to do. I said it would help the problem, and it would, by reducing the opportunities in which structural racism can rear it's head.
 

danm999

Member
You're right Moore. Why should the Democrats care or pay attention to their supporters in Georgia or Texas. What possible pay off could that ever have?
 

Crocodile

Member
It always felt weird to me that we would have basically 4 individual state primaries/caucuses and then a blow out on Super Tuesday and then smaller groups of states later on in the process. It seems like it would make sense to maybe have 5 "Super ___" days with 10 states each day picked from a wide spread of the country? Is the slow leak into the ramp up specifically about testing specific campaign strategies and what that says about individual candidates that succeed or fail under specific conditions?
 

Ophelion

Member
I did until I realized he was a deceptive asshole.

He gives liberals a bad name.

I didn't like him when I wasn't a liberal. Now that I am...I still pretty much think he's a scummy, opportunistic asshole who gives conservatives a convenient fall guy to point to and go, "See? This is what liberals are like. They're all horrible, like Michael Moore!"

He does way more harm than good. Thanks a lot, Moore.
 
You have to realize you're mistaken. Bowling for Columbine is an amazing documentary.

No, that was fine. As a person, though, I think he's a caricature of a self-absorbed white liberal who has to white/mansplain everything to everyone.

He made a good film, though.
 
It always felt weird to me that we would have basically 4 individual state primaries/caucuses and then a blow out on Super Tuesday and then smaller groups of states later on in the process. It seems like it would make sense to maybe have 5 "Super ___" days with 10 states each day picked from a wide spread of the country? Is the slow leak into the ramp up specifically about testing specific campaign strategies and what that says about individual candidates that succeed or fail under specific conditions?

There will never be a situation in which Iowa is not first. Iowa gives retail politics a chance. It lets the small guy/gal have a chance at winning. After that, though, I agree with you. A rolling primary calendar in which we balance states as best as possible is a good thing. NH, NV and SC won't go quietly.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I love how in that internet search poll for Drumpf, Rubio STILL came after Trump and Cruz.
 

User 406

Banned

Carson's going to bring them into a closet, then stab them all. Then he'll suspend his campaign. Then he'll endorse himself. Then he'll smile.


This country went to war with itself over the issue of race. The political parties reconfigured themselves due to the subject of race. Minorities are in a worse state financially and class-wise specifically due to policies that were either explicitly racist or because normal policies were enacted and enforced by those who were racist. Race is the defining aspect of American politics and history.

Race >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Class

This all fuckin' day. The first time we got socialist advances it was undermined by racism. If the foundation of the working class is cracked, we can't build on it.


Hey guys, did you know that Hillary Clinton lacks the strength and stamina to be president?

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? I've heard him say this so many times and I still can't figure it out. I assume it's code for something? She's old? Is bad in bed?

She doesn't even lift, bro.
 

danm999

Member
I liked Bowing for Columbine when I was a teenager but on reflection it might have just been the reaction of a smug non-American looking down on a culture and not processing why it was so entrenched.
 

FiggyCal

Banned
It has some problems, but I generally liked it. Roger & Me is less flawed and more enjoyable IMO

The argument that he makes in the movie about fear and the need for guns because of it, I found very convincing.

I never liked the Charlton Heston interview, but the movie was so good otherwise that I completely forgot about that part. It's the only documentary that's ever actually made me cry. I've never seen Roger & Me though.

I liked Bowing for Columbine when I was a teenager but on reflection it might have just been the reaction of a smug non-American looking down on a culture and not processing why it was so entrenched.

I don't think it's like that at all. Even Moore made it clear he was a member of the NRA.
 
That Vox article is interesting, but based on the numbers it presents, it seems to overstate its case quite a bit. It may be true that what they call authoritarian leanings are a stronger corollary for Trump support than any other they studied, but the data don't seem to support the idea that they comprise a large majority of Trump's supporters, just a sizable chunk. In a time like this, I plan on being pretty skeptical of relative unknowns claiming to have "cracked the code" of Trumpism.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
No...Biden and others were taken out of context.

Biden specifically protested against allowing far-right conservatives on the court in Bush's final year or any year. He was fine with a real moderate.
If this is your argument:
Think Progress said:
But Biden’s full speech undermines their claim. Rather than urging his colleagues to deny Bush’s potential nominee a hearing, Biden was bemoaning the politicization of the confirmation process — hence his suggestion of not holding a hearing in the heat of a presidential election — and what he saw as Bush’s refusal to properly consult with the Senate in selecting a nominee. In fact, just 10 minutes after calling for temporary inaction on Bush’s candidate, Biden actually promised to consider a moderate Supreme Court nominee.

“I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”
It doesn't change the fact in a hypothetical situation Biden said:
Washington Post said:
...Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) who, while serving in 1992 as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered a sprawling, 90-minute floor address that included a call for halting action on Supreme Court nominees in an election year.

Biden delivered his remarks in late June, as the court approached the end of its term — the traditional season for retirement announcements — and as President George H.W. Bush waged an uphill campaign for a second term amid an economic slowdown and sinking approval ratings.

“not name a nominee until after the November election is completed” and, if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
He should not have said that at all.
 
I mean... I love ya vicis, but yikes...

Just yikes...

Give me whatever the fuck you're smoking RIGHT NOW!

Hear me out. Try looking at this from a long-term GOP perspective (I know that's hard for GAF to do).

The GOP has been losing in national elections since the early 90s and this will only exacerbate with current demographic changes. There needs to be a party realignment if they want to ever win the White House again. Everyone knows this. The GOP leadership knows it. It's been painfully clear since 2012.

So why are they so desperately holding onto a losing strategy? It's because trying to win the white vote (74% in 2012) is still more sound than trying to leech off some of the 26% minority vote, even though that white vote is going down every 4 years.

It's like how traditional TV is declining every year, but it's still the largest slice of the pie, and the Democrats have the streaming crowd wrapped up, so it makes no sense to suddenly abandon traditional TV to pander to Vudu users.

If the GOP wants to win, the best strategy is to consolidate the white vote. Right now they're mostly a platform tailored to white evangelicals and the very rich, both of which are small slices of the white population. What they need to become is a white populist party, who work for all white voters, not just those at the very top.

Now, does that mean they should discriminate against minorities? Absolutely not. They should treat all races equally, and be welcoming towards minorities in this country. However, they shouldn't bother pandering to minorities because it's been made very clear that they will not vote GOP, policy be damned.

Look at AA: they vote in staggering numbers for the establishment Democratic candidate, even if Sanders' record is actually incredibly AA-friendly. There is no way the GOP will get a slice of that pie, so no point in trying.
Look at the Hispanic vote: even before Trump they were voting heavily Democratic. Even in 2004 with W's attempts to win them over, they still went heavily for Kerry.
Even the Asian vote: they have been going 70+% for Democrats, even though they are the highest income earners in America and are voting against their own economic interests.

These groups are lost to the GOP. If the GOP wants to win national elections for the next few decades, this is what they need to do:

1. Energize the white working class and campaign on a populist platform. Abandon tax cuts for the very rich in favor of tax cuts for everyone, including the poor and middle class. Focus on creating businesses and jobs, and growing the economy.
2. Abandon extremely conservative positions on social issues. Gay marriage is a losing battle. Advocate for limiting abortions instead of banning them outright.
3. Adopt a more isolationist, nationalistic platform. Ironically in this race, both Trump and Bernie are more isolationist, with Hillary being more of a war hawk. Hillary is giving GOP the perfect chance to repaint the Democrats as the warmongering party. Let them wage wars all over the world while the GOP is focused on nation-building and staying out of other countries' affairs.
4. Along the same isolationist lines, we need immigration reform. If the strategy is to coalesce the white vote, then it must be complemented by immigration policies that keep illegals out, and bring in more white immigrants from Europe, Australia, and the like. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, right or wrong. I'm just saying if the GOP wants to have a viable national strategy this might be a good way to go.
5. Go after the uneducated, poor, rural whites. Ike invested in huge infrastructure programs in the 1950s which made America great. We need to make America great again. Not through welfare, but government projects that create millions of jobs. Paint the Democrats as the rich, elitist party who cater to the rich while the GOP caters to average working Americans.

Now, this is quite a realignment but I believe it's probably the Republican party's best path forward. Unfortunately there is no viable strategy for them to get the minority vote so they might as well accept it. Adopt a populist message and win over the working class. Bernie would have been a great candidate to lead this political realignment and take advantage of all the voter anger that's been so prominent this election. But his big mistake was caucusing with the Democrats when all the white angry voters are on the Republican side. He called for a political revolution with huge voter turnouts - well that is happening, it's just not happening on the Democrats' side. Trump is now filling the void that Sanders left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom