-
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
Assuming voters start abandoning Rubio and predominantly move to Cruz, he could win a lot of states. Trump seems to be struggling lately as well.
User 463088
Banned
She's not going to go there. If she thought it was even remotely feasible, she would. She knows it's not and she won't. For better or worse, Hillary is a realist. She may be willing to adapt the position that healthcare is a right, which I believe she thinks it is. She just has a different strategy for how to get it.
My bet is she'd agree to reinstate Glass-Stegal along with her other far better proposals. I'm sure there are a few other concessions Bernie would like to get for the platform that she would be open too.
That's... Terrible.
That's the sort of thing that splits the party and leads to low turnout. It's precisely the wrong thing you do. You dont use your delegates to *bargain*, it's such a bad thing.
What you do is what Clinton did in 2008 - you embrace and support the winner *without* bargaining and demanding. It weakens the nominee out of the gate, it leaves the party still split (he didn't get what he wanted, Clinton's a republican corporate stooge etc etc).
If Bernie does this it will prove everything everyone said about him right, and wound Clinton from the start.
Macho Madness
Member
Trump Florida dropped to 76 cents. Seems like a good buy.
Basileus777
Member
Why would it drop after yesterday? It makes no sense considering the early vote guarantees that no one other than Rubio could beat him there.
Retromelon
Member
Ending the mass federal surveilance in the name of national security that has yet to produce evidence of a single terrorist activity prevented to warrant the compromise of the fourth amendment rights of hundreds of millions of americans?
The absolute best he could hope for on that front is having her outline a public option proposal. Which would never actually pass, but she should do anyway.
Macho Madness
Member
The poll that showed Rubio like 5 points behind.
I'm betting it's like LA where Trump wins the early vote but maybe Rubio wins the election day votes. Trump still wins.
Basileus777
Member
Which poll?
User 463088
Banned
As long as he eventually comes around, I don't think it would be disastrous. If he refuses to release his delegates, and forces a roll call vote, it's fine. She still wins on the first ballot and it just looks like it was planned all along. My preference is for them to do what Obama and Hillary did in 2008. Put his name in contention, let a few states vote, defer to Vermont. Let Bernie come out and call for a vote by acclimation. Everyone's happy. He gets a great speaking slot where he can go on and on about millionaires and billionaires for an hour, and then he ends it with "Now let's elect the Democratic nominee for President!" (He doesn't even have to say her name.)
In 2008, Hillary's speech will not be topped. It was perfect. It healed the party and she came out looking like a hero rather than a bitter loser. If Bernie loses, how he is perceived is up to him.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
It turns out the public option isn't feasible either, but what would obamacare have ended up being if we didn't even bother to bring the public option to the negotiating table?
Macho Madness
Member
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...ils-5-florida-poll-conducted-anti-trump-group
I mean, look it was conducted by. lol
Basileus777
Member
Oh, the poll run by the anti-Trump group. No wonder I forgot about it.
This is not a good understanding of how political negotiation works, either in general or specifically for the ACA.
The position supported by the 60th most liberal senator is the position that can get passed into law. It generally has nothing to do with what you say in public about your goals.
Macho Madness
Member
The Onion terrifyingly correct: http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284
User 463088
Banned
The public option is far more feasible than switching to single payer. We'd have to have both houses, of course, but it's a tweak to the ACA not an entire overhaul of a huge part of our economy.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
You don't think there's some level of correlation between who the 60th most liberal senator is and how strongly you push for positions that progressives care about? We saw how liberal a congress we were rewarded in 2014 for running away from Obama and branding the party as republican-lite. I understand the need for people like John Bel Edwards in places like Louisiana, but we can do better than we have in energizing the base on its own merits rather than using the republican agenda as a bogeyman.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Public option can be implemented through the states, too.
Single-payer can be as well but that's going to be a much harder sell - ironically Vermont is the best example of this. They had a single-payer plan ready to go that fell through because they had no way of paying for it.
Single-payer can be as well but that's going to be a much harder sell - ironically Vermont is the best example of this. They had a single-payer plan ready to go that fell through because they had no way of paying for it.
Rubio winning PR. 1 million Puerto Ricans in Florida. Won't make much of a difference, but that's the reason.
So, if Obama wanted a public option, all he needed to do was support a universal federal program while he was campaigning?
I don't think that would have made Joe Lieberman more liberal. I also don't think it would have resulted in a senate win in Georgia. It might have convinced 400 fewer people in MN to vote D in 2008, though obviously nobody can say that with any certainty. Maybe more would have.
I'm just....not seeing how this is supposed to play out. Seems very underpants gnomes as political theories go.
OTOH, a great way to do this is to enthusiastically support downballot Democrats.
JesseEwiak
Member
Just a reminder for those worried about Hillary losing to Trump in state with lots of WWC voters. I give you Michigan - otherwise known as Ground Zero for that with bonus racial resentment.
NBC Michigan poll:
Clinton: 52
Trump: 36
Clinton: 48
Cruz: 41
NBC Michigan poll:
Clinton: 52
Trump: 36
Clinton: 48
Cruz: 41
Most Puerto Ricans in FL are Democrats though.
User 463088
Banned
And the state thing is Hillary's plan for it. Something like the public option at the state level may not be the worst idea ever. Where I used to live, they had a county run plan. It wasn't insurance, but it was excellent for what it was. This was in Florida, and they use it for those who can't get Medicaid and those who don't make enough for help on the exchange. The coverage is pretty damn decent. I'd love to see more states/counties look into something like this.
True but there are Republicans as well... and Rubio won Puerto Ricans by over 70%.
I'm not saying it will make a difference or not, I'm explaining the market reaction.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
As someone from Idaho I feel pretty ignored by the current system anyways because a liberal vote is basically worthless. Popular vote would make my vote mean something and would make it feel less depressing to go vote.
User 463088
Banned
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Do you two think the Connecticut compromise was a mistake and we should abolish the Senate? That's the sort of thinking you're talking. Look, smaller states have way too much influence over the Electoral College, there's no doubt about that. At the same time though, if the Electoral College was evenly distributed by population and got rid of winner-take-all, all you're doing is switching swing states for big states. It's more fair, but it could be better.
I'll start whipping up some graphics when I get home from the gym, but an evenly distributed Electoral College would give California 66 votes and Wyoming 1. We're the United States, decisions are not suppose to be made strictly made by population. My compromise is giving each state two votes per senator, so California 68 and Wyoming 3. California still has way more say but Wyoming isn't as drowned out as it once was.
I think distributing proportionally or a winner-take-most (proportional + winner takes two extra votes) are the best methods. You avoid the problem of gerrymandering with congressional districts. I can go into how they would have affected the 2012 election later.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Killary at it again?
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Are we really reporting on Twitter hearsay? Post the tweet if someone said that.
can I get a confirmed reporter tweet. Anyone could have conjectured that.
User 463088
Banned
I'm looking for the tweet. It was posted originally in Kos. The person in question reported it first. Then replied that it wasn't confirmed. Then re-tweeted that he confirmed it. I'm trying to find it.
I need to get Twitter so that I can re-Tweet this stuff.
http://www.samefacts.com/2016/03/elections/2016/what-makes-bernie-continue-to-run/
He then confirmed it with his contact. I wasn't reporting it as fact, just as something interesting that I read. That's why I put that it was from Twitter in my original post.
JesseEwiak
Member
I don't know about them, but yes - absolutely. Artificial lines created by happenstance should not determine how powerful you vote is.
brainchild
Banned
This is probably not the appropriate time to be complaining about the amount of coverage that a former first lady or current president is or may not be getting respectively, after dying.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Sometimes politicians do things because they realize it would be electorally unpopular not to do so. I can't say it would have definitely persuaded Lieberman, but the path we ultimately took sure as hell didn't.
That said, Obama's hesitancy going against McCain is more understandable than Hillary's against the dumpster fire of the current GOP.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I'd be OK with proportional so long as it was implemented uniformly across the states (which would be difficult to achieve), my real problem is with splitting by congressional district.
Coriolanus
Banned
I think states have their interests defended via the senate. I don't see why states should have major pull during a presidential election, where what should matter is the voter's, yknow, vote. Plus a guy being able to get the position without a majority of the votes is the kinda thing that i feel should be utterly impossible.
This coming from a guy that lives a country that uses a two-round system on top of a simple popular vote approach.
also why in blazes are you hitting the gym on a sunday and stealth bragging about it? dude, i just ate 3 pints of ice cream on top of an eisbein, dont make me feel bad about that kinda thing, mang.
I have a feeling the sitting President dying would get vastly more coverage.
Aaron Strife
Banned
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Well I'm glad the compromise was done because otherwise the country might not been whole, but instead broken into smaller ones. Who knows what the implications would have been.
As much as people love to mock Republican's for states rights, if there's a President Trump or Cruz with majorities in both houses it will sure matter to you then.
You're right, in the end of congressional districts are too vulnerable to a use.
I think proportional more or less prevents the possibility of winning without a majority. Even with two extra votes to each state it seems unlikely.
lol okay it was a stealth brag. Sunday is the best day to go! Not much to brag about anyway, I'm not a beefcake.
User 463088
Banned
White working class, I believe.
More evidence that Cruz is the more dangerous candidate IMO. 16 points vs 7 is huge, especially taking into account the possibility of a hypothetical crisis before the election.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Cruz hasn't been attacked from the left in a year. How do you think senior citizens are going to feel about his tax plan massively increasing sales taxes to cut taxes for the top 1%?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked