cartoon_soldier
Member
Agreed. Last night will help Rubio, we have to see till what extent. Electorate can change minds.
-
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
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Agreed. Last night will help Rubio, we have to see till what extent. Electorate can change minds.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Hold those leads Trump please.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I just find it hard to believe one debate will sway 20% of voters in a single direction. That is almost unheard of unless it is a major, major mistake which last night wasn't the case for Trump.
What are the only states even contested now? Florida, Texas? Texas is proportional and if Trump keeps his solidified 25%+ of voters, the state ends up being meaningless.
What are the only states even contested now? Florida, Texas? Texas is proportional and if Trump keeps his solidified 25%+ of voters, the state ends up being meaningless.
What the media (and reasonable people) think is a good debate, isn't what the GOP electorate think is a good debate. The media said Jeb! had good debates and he had a few good shots at Trump too in the past, and look at how good that did. It didn't mean anything.
The important thing to remember is that a large portion of Trump's support is concrete. They'll vote for him regardless of anything he does or says (and regardless what's said about him) and this debate isn't nearly enough to sway things by Tuesday.
I think Rubio obviously had to do something, so going down in flames calling Trump a con artist and all sorts of shit is clearly his establishment puppets talking through him right now. They're clearly desperate. But it doesn't mean shit. And denigrating the front-runner in your party as a con artist isn't gonna ingratiate himself to that base.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=rubio trump con artist twitter bears that out right now.
It is hilarious to watch though. I've said this before, but our best support in the general against Trump is gonna come from the disaffected right, not necessarily the left.
The important thing to remember is that a large portion of Trump's support is concrete. They'll vote for him regardless of anything he does or says (and regardless what's said about him) and this debate isn't nearly enough to sway things by Tuesday.
I think Rubio obviously had to do something, so going down in flames calling Trump a con artist and all sorts of shit is clearly his establishment puppets talking through him right now. They're clearly desperate. But it doesn't mean shit. And denigrating the front-runner in your party as a con artist isn't gonna ingratiate himself to that base.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=rubio trump con artist twitter bears that out right now.
It is hilarious to watch though. I've said this before, but our best support in the general against Trump is gonna come from the disaffected right, not necessarily the left.
Is there actual evidence that #whichhillary was removed from trending topics or is this just a conspiracy theory because Hillary will be at a rally with a Twitter exec? I can't see any information to support the former.
Edit: so this apparently the source of the censorship charges. Not enough info to really understand what may or may not have happened.
http://www.guerrillasocialists.com/post/140018333267/yes-were-being-censored-by-twitter
Edit: so this apparently the source of the censorship charges. Not enough info to really understand what may or may not have happened.
http://www.guerrillasocialists.com/post/140018333267/yes-were-being-censored-by-twitter
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Looking at the polls I'd put money on him losing a least one of those right now.
shinra-bansho
Member
Watched that Hardball Sanders interview.
It was rough for a bit, but it didn't really seem as bad overall as people made it out to be.
It was rough for a bit, but it didn't really seem as bad overall as people made it out to be.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
If I may say, Wolf Blitzer and Hugh Hewitt were dreadful. Blitzer was a complete non-factor and didn't do his job.
As for Hewitt, the guy would get someone to make a definitive statement, and then ask the same candidate for the same definitive statement 25 seconds later. It made no sense.
As for Hewitt, the guy would get someone to make a definitive statement, and then ask the same candidate for the same definitive statement 25 seconds later. It made no sense.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Blitzer has always been terrible at his job, it's nothing new. I thought Bash did a decent job by demanding specifics from Trump on healthcare but the format allowed him and others to bullshit. The individual mandate is not some nonsense insurance companies created, it's a basic idea that makes private insurance based healthcare policy work. That has been a fact for decades, it's nothing new and was indeed cosigned by the Heritage Foundation. So hearing Trump and others dismiss it was laughable. To be fair Obama did the same thing in the 2008 debates.
I thought Trump was exposed a few times but his voters simply don't care. He does seem to have a ceiling of support though and perhaps a 1v1 race will change that. I know polls have been done that suggest otherwise but I still think he could lose such a face off with Cruz or Rubio. Is this the likely result of the primaries? Probably not. But it's the last defense against Trump.
I thought Trump was exposed a few times but his voters simply don't care. He does seem to have a ceiling of support though and perhaps a 1v1 race will change that. I know polls have been done that suggest otherwise but I still think he could lose such a face off with Cruz or Rubio. Is this the likely result of the primaries? Probably not. But it's the last defense against Trump.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Latest polls from Florida show he destroys Rubio and Cruz when one-on-one. I have a feeling that would happen elsewhere, too.
Look at his polls recently--they're climbing in the 40s.
FloydtheFathead
Member
With Rubio.. Yeah, it might be possible if they had done it sooner. I could see it.
With Cruz? Nope.. Cruz was dominated and I think if it were down to them, trump romps him out.
I think it's a pretty good article actually. Underlines where the actual Trump threat is coming from. He's not going to win or lose the election due to good/bad (and let's be honest it's bad) minority support, instead it's just gonna come down to how many working class people he can flip around. And personally I believe it's going to be enough to make the race much closer than Romney ever could make it.
Doesn't mean that it's likely he'll actually get to the white house but the strategy and rhetoric are clear. The election is Hillary's to lose but after the nomination she has to get really aggressive on certain issues where she's been really weak in the past.
This is also why I think the "Hillary just needs a young minority VP" *cough* Castro *cough* sentiment is misguided. No she needs someone who will help her hold on to the voters that are in danger of being grabbed by Trump. Castro might have been good against Rubio but against Trump he's pretty much useless.
YAAAAS QUEEN
Only thing that would make me happier is if Rubio gets buried there. Please happen.
FloydtheFathead
Member
Roland_Gunner
Member
Its always good to be aware of your opponent's strengths but articles like this really don't show how much Trump pushes away moderates that aren't his base and even some Republicans. Like MA, New Jersey is a northeastern state where Trump is miles ahead of the primary field. But the internals of this Rutgers poll are terrible. He's negatives are 57% overall and even 49% among whites.
http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/rutgers-eagleton-2016-presidential-election-feb2016/
aspiegamer
Member
Wolf was entirely awful, but deep down I'm a little happy he let those ridiculous shouting fests go between the middle three so much. It's the drama we all want to see (there's no way Wolf doesn't know that) and from how the past, uh, all of the debates have gone I think the media doesn't mind letting it look terrible. Crowd reaction is apparently the standard for all primary debates in the future. In none of the 10 has there been any real effort to clamp down on it. The RNC obviously has no problems with it or they'd be giving out tickets (and ordering the campaigns to give theirs out) to people who could behave themselves.
This was already the case through some of the 2012 cycle, and part of what made the first GE debate awkward for Obama is that Romney acted the same way he would have in a GOP debate. As in largely full of shit and entirely pandering, where other candidates would have called him out for that bullshit in a more open setting but still gotten applause for his answers. Obama had zero experience with that kind of shitshow debate and had no idea how to react. No applause means no idea what worked as a "good" line or not on the fly. I don't really blame him anymore for botching that. It was a situation that should never have created itself. Who would have thought the GOP clusterfuck primary debates would prep Romney for a decisive win 1v1 against Obama? It made no sense at the time. Obama tore him apart in the later 2, of course.
Edit: I'll disclaimer this and say that I would not be in any way surprised if Trump managed to pull off something special. He makes odd things happen and already breaks all the rules, so who knows.
2016 has made 2012's shenanigans look downright civil and Trump has flourished in this format. Breaks to run out and Tweet and get new attack lines and everything. The GE debates have no crowd to feed on (positively or negatively, both of which he handles well), no breaks, and Clinton would call him out for his standard spiel. She'd actually point out that military spending is up so there's no need to "rebuild", when there's been zero questioning of that in a setting where everyone agrees. His vague plans can be outed as garbage because she'd give out an actual detailed plan in response, etc.
Should be fun! Need to spend some time thinking about what I want to drink.
Is there a case for her to be selecting a moderate Republican? Attempt to splinter off some conservative leaning supporters and try to send a signal for less partisan politics once she gets in office?
Yes but Hillary's numbers among whites are even worse than Trump's. And with Trump's clear strengths and Hillary's weaknesses a lot of the white working class vote that usually goes democrat could be up for grabs for Trump.
I'm not saying that it's a likely avenue for winning, just that it's the strategy he's going to use against Hillary.
I also don't like polling of the general population this far out. Do the same polls a month or two after the nomination and we'll see how well each candidate has been able to shape their message and persona for the GE.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
There's 0% chance of that happening. She's not going to extend a middle finger to her own party by opting not to pick a fellow dem for the VP spot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K0fDRMc8qw lmao
I think the fundamental problem with picking any "moderate" Republican is that they're all still awful on economics, especially Kasich. So, it's a non-starter.
And the idea that Trump will try to run it up with Whites and alienate every other demographic in some sort of race war type shit will just horrify any reasonable person, regardless of race. That shit won't fly in 2016. This isn't 84.
QuiteWhittle
Member
The bolded matters less than you think. The last Democrat to win a majority of the white vote was Johnson in 1964.
So Democrats have been underwater with whites for 50 years, no reason to expect that would change with Clinton v. Trump.
Elaugaufein
Member
That would be incredibly risky since it would "confirm" everything said about her in terms of being a corporatist , flip flopper, untrustworthy and not a true progressive.
It also pretty much nulls the suck it up and vote Hillary because Republicans argument when she's running with one.
Clinton is pretty much the worst possible candidate at a bad time to try the olive branch in that sense.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Yeah, this isn't so much about winning or losing, just evaluating Trump's strengths as a candidate. I think they're terrible and am trying to explain why. The race will certainly evolve in the next couple of months but Clinton and Trump are both well enough know that I don't expect that much change. There would be more variance with someone like Rubio who people are just getting to know.
Yeah, the first half of it Chris really lays into him, but once it got to the audience questions and Chris's closing questions it was much better for Bernie
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
And white people matter less than ever. In 1992 they represented 88% of all votes. In 2016 they'll represent less than 70% of the vote.
QuiteWhittle
Member
The time to pull this off was 2008, for both sides. Obama/Hagel vs. McCain/Lieberman was touted as a legitimate possibility.
gutter_trash
Banned
I think Trump could steel Ohio in the GE.
The type of people he has been targeting, angry low income, low educated whites with shitty jobs.
he's going to make gains in the Rust Belt
I don't think he has enough to flip any North-Eastern state but he may take Ohio
The type of people he has been targeting, angry low income, low educated whites with shitty jobs.
he's going to make gains in the Rust Belt
I don't think he has enough to flip any North-Eastern state but he may take Ohio
Elaugaufein
Member
You do realize you cannot win without getting at least 1/6th of 60% of the vote right ? Whites may not have a stranglehold on elections anymore but completely writing them off is a terrible idea. And the dismissive attitude feeds into resentment that the GOP love.
That feeling when Diablos is the calm one.
Edit: Also yeah. Rubio needed a miracle killing blow that swung major states 10% points minimum last night. No matter how much the media tries to make that narrative happen it totally didn't. The only thing conclusively shown last night was that everyone on that stage was petty and trump snatched cruz's soul.
Elaugaufein
Member
I think cartoon_soldier is the new measuring stick.
shinra-bansho
Member
Are we really freaking out about the prospect of the Democrats not even getting a third of white voters?
Edit: Oh a sixth now.
Edit: Oh a sixth now.
Maybe, but the Dems don't necessarily even need OH or FL or CO or IA. Let's be super generous to him and he still loses.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/57kwy
I think the biggest takeaway from this debate is a confirmation that Trump is not some infallable God that cannot dodges every hit in a debate, but rather that no one had taken any serious shots up to this point.
I think it comes too late in the primaries to matter but it bodes well for the future where Hilary faces off against Trump 1 on 1.
Also I guran-damn-tee he drops a slur before the election.
I think it comes too late in the primaries to matter but it bodes well for the future where Hilary faces off against Trump 1 on 1.
Also I guran-damn-tee he drops a slur before the election.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I'm not writing them off, I'm saying that Trump would have to, as you pointed out, win a commanding majority of white people (like 2/3 of them) to compensate for his deficits among every other ethnic group. A few decades back, it required a less impressive lead among whites to offset deficits with other groups. This is a big reason why the southern strategy has culminated in a hail mary with Trump this time around. I think the GOP base, consciously or otherwise, has realized that winning whites, and thus an election, by alienating non-whites is, mathematically, getting harder and harder to pull off.
wild wild rice
Member
If you see it that way, it's definitely crazy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked