Dubbedinenglish
Banned
The establishment runs the primaries.
-
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 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
The establishment runs the primaries.
Macho Madness
Member
Yes and they're going to freak out in New York too. It will be chaos: http://wivb.com/2016/03/23/new-yorks-unique-primary-rules-will-keep-some-from-casting-ballots/
Some people are having issues in New York because their party affiliation appears to have changed too. Don't know what's going on there.
Some people are having issues in New York because their party affiliation appears to have changed too. Don't know what's going on there.
I think calling s4p a cult is a little harsh, although there's definitely an ongoing problem (among everybody) with information filtering in the universe of targeted newsfeeds.
To go back to the r/bravenewbies comparison, I think you can see a lot of both the benefits and drawbacks of decentralized leadership by looking at these Reddit communities. Which is an important thing to understand as a liberal/radical!
In the up times, when everything's going well and it's all about the excitement of creating and participating in something, the decentralization and group plussing of a subreddit are actually really effective in creating a core group of evangelists (posters) and a mass of marginally attached people (readers). The evangelists churn out content, plans, and energy and get rewarded primarily with upvotes and control. The marginally attached folks get a constant stream of reminders and pushes to shove them over the decision hump and into taking some small meaningful action, over and over again. Their reward is the emotional charge of feeling engagement and ownership for a low investment. Put them together and you get a great engine for producing lots and lots of volunteer energy and brainpower. Sometimes this means defining action downwards, like Facebanking, but it's still people who have transitioned from watchers to actors, and that's the hardest part for any volunteer effort.
In the leaner times, though, when dealing with defeat or tedium, the serious disadvantage of decentralized leadership becomes clear -- it is much harder, as a leader, to handle failure gracefully than it is to keep succeeding. Ten evangelists each producing a new project with a hundred watchers and doing a bunch of cool stuff suddenly becomes ten angry posters disagreeing over what went wrong, whose fault it is, how fair it is, and what should be done next, covering the front page in arguments. The lack of formal process that gave people freedom to do what they thought would help suddenly means there's no structure to guide the postmortem and avoid fingerpointing, deflecting, and even spinning conspiracy theories. Instead of a front page of excited people doing cool stuff and making you proud to be part of the group you have a front page of angry people expressing their disappointment that they didn't get their emotional charge from participating today, which creates a vicious circle. The marginally attached people were always marginally attached, so without that charge it's easy for them to drift away and give up. The evangelists were always emotionally invested more than anything, so it's easy for them to end up bitter and angry that their investment isn't being rewarded by the universe, and start evangelizing that emotion instead.
Honestly, this isn't even about the internet -- you could probably put together a pretty good critique of Occupy this way. The internet just makes it a lot easier and quicker to succeed and fail.
To go back to the r/bravenewbies comparison, I think you can see a lot of both the benefits and drawbacks of decentralized leadership by looking at these Reddit communities. Which is an important thing to understand as a liberal/radical!
In the up times, when everything's going well and it's all about the excitement of creating and participating in something, the decentralization and group plussing of a subreddit are actually really effective in creating a core group of evangelists (posters) and a mass of marginally attached people (readers). The evangelists churn out content, plans, and energy and get rewarded primarily with upvotes and control. The marginally attached folks get a constant stream of reminders and pushes to shove them over the decision hump and into taking some small meaningful action, over and over again. Their reward is the emotional charge of feeling engagement and ownership for a low investment. Put them together and you get a great engine for producing lots and lots of volunteer energy and brainpower. Sometimes this means defining action downwards, like Facebanking, but it's still people who have transitioned from watchers to actors, and that's the hardest part for any volunteer effort.
In the leaner times, though, when dealing with defeat or tedium, the serious disadvantage of decentralized leadership becomes clear -- it is much harder, as a leader, to handle failure gracefully than it is to keep succeeding. Ten evangelists each producing a new project with a hundred watchers and doing a bunch of cool stuff suddenly becomes ten angry posters disagreeing over what went wrong, whose fault it is, how fair it is, and what should be done next, covering the front page in arguments. The lack of formal process that gave people freedom to do what they thought would help suddenly means there's no structure to guide the postmortem and avoid fingerpointing, deflecting, and even spinning conspiracy theories. Instead of a front page of excited people doing cool stuff and making you proud to be part of the group you have a front page of angry people expressing their disappointment that they didn't get their emotional charge from participating today, which creates a vicious circle. The marginally attached people were always marginally attached, so without that charge it's easy for them to drift away and give up. The evangelists were always emotionally invested more than anything, so it's easy for them to end up bitter and angry that their investment isn't being rewarded by the universe, and start evangelizing that emotion instead.
Honestly, this isn't even about the internet -- you could probably put together a pretty good critique of Occupy this way. The internet just makes it a lot easier and quicker to succeed and fail.
I haven't heard anything about any issues here.
Macho Madness
Member
People are checking their status online and some are showing party affiliation changed or no registration. Of course it's the DNC's fault.
Nate Silver posted another 270 to win picture, this time a bit more realistic.
"Here's what the map might look like in an election held today. Trump's Rust Belt strength would help him keep MO, IN "
Gonna have to send this to my brothers to convince them to vote. Georgia potentially going blue omg my vote might count.
"Here's what the map might look like in an election held today. Trump's Rust Belt strength would help him keep MO, IN "
Gonna have to send this to my brothers to convince them to vote. Georgia potentially going blue omg my vote might count.
That is a very beautiful map.
Can't say I've heard anything like this yet.
Having your usually-red state go blue is one of the. best. feelings. You get local-flavored salt, local media reactions, you know your candidate won big if he/she's winning there, and holiday gatherings afterwards with Republican relatives are a bit cheerier.
One day, it'll happen again here. One day. I hope these incredibly early map stories come true.
That map is giving me 1992/1996 vibes. Not just a win, but a BIG win.
One day, it'll happen again here. One day. I hope these incredibly early map stories come true.
That map is giving me 1992/1996 vibes. Not just a win, but a BIG win.
VendettaRed07
Member
I don't know.
But it really makes me feel like we have to be able to get some other WTF type wins if Trump is the nominee. I mean, that map that was just posted is a huge victory, but I almost feel like there has to be more there that can be won. Rolling with Trump has to be more damaging.
Macho Madness
Member
Essentially the economy was terrible, the Iraq War was incredibly unpopular, Obama was from Illinois, he promoted high youth turnout, and visited the state a lot,
Early on in 2012, they came to the realization that the state had gotten considerably more conservative since 2008 so they didn't try to contest it.
Macho Madness
Member
I just checked my voter registration in Indiana and got a little worried because it didn't show party affiliation but then I realized it doesn't matter because we have an open primary.
Here's what's on my ballot:
and lmao the Republican ballot still has long dropped out candidates like Jeb, Carly, Christie, Rand etc.
Here's what's on my ballot:
and lmao the Republican ballot still has long dropped out candidates like Jeb, Carly, Christie, Rand etc.
RastaMentality
Banned
No, they need to stay in a state of grand delusion until November.
In all seriousness, this would actually not surprise me.
I mean, it would make me really happy. But Arizona/Georgia are the next Virginia/Colorado/North Carolina. Clinton should make an effort in them just from a long term party-building perspective.
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
That map is the only thing that gives me comfort when I think about Trump in the general. The idea that Arizona and Georgia are in play just makes me happy. I still dream of the day when the GOP is forced to play defense in Texas. That's when you know they are done as a party.
Skiptastic
Member
Part of this is true. The economy was in shambles, Obama got some Northern Indiana/Chicagoland boost, Palin made the ticket look stupid. Also, I think there was momentum to have the first black president, especially one who ran an excellent campaign. But don't forget, in 2008, Mitch Daniels also won the state overwhelmingly. So it's not like Hoosiers were 100% anti-GOP at that stage.
He lost Indiana in 2012 because he had the unpopular ACA to run against, and Mitt Romney was a pretty easy Republican for Hoosiers to vote for.
But I would argue against the idea that Indiana suddenly got more conservative, and I use Joe Donnelly winning the Senate in 2012 as a Democrat as my evidence. If Indiana was really "conservative or bust", Mourdock would have won. But he made statements that seemed "too conservative" for Hoosiers and so he lost.
I'm biased because I live here, but I think that Indiana in state-wide elections is pretty much this: our first stance is to vote Republican, especially one who is moderate to slightly conservative. If the GOP candidate starts doing or saying things that seem too right wing, voters will take a look at their opponent and might vote for that person, if they don't seem "too liberal". It's the reason I think John Gregg has a chance against Pence, because of Pence's handling of the RFRA debacle. (Why couldn't there have been another Evan Bayh waiting in the wings???)
It helped that it was a hard fought primary state. The push for student registrations and the Gary machine really carried over.
The "neighboring son" effect really was important I think. Obama's friend Gary really came through. But all in all it was just a perfect storm.
They'd probably stay that way anyway, regardless of polling. We can only hope there'll be cameras rolling behind the scenes like with Mitt's documentary back in 2012.
The election night reaction will be so fucking amazing. The in-fighting, finger pointing, and utter refusal among the conservative party/media to self-reflect and change will be a sight to behold.
Macho Madness
Member
They're going to have Dick Morris and Karl Rove talking about how it's going to be an easy win for Trump because of this magical appeal to white people that somehow Romney didn't already have right up until it hits 11PM on the east coast.
And then sometime afterward.
RINSE. REPEAT.
And then sometime afterward.
RINSE. REPEAT.
Box of Kittens
Banned
One thing to keep in mind is that while Indiana is undeniably a conservative state, there's still a decent base for a Democrat to work with. Northwest Indiana is strongly influenced by Chicago and is largely Democratic. Indianapolis, although a traditionally Republican city, has been trending Democratic for some time. There are quite a few colleges and universities throughout the state. There's just enough there to have gotten Obama over the top in a strong Democratic year and with a vastly superior organization.
Indeed, if you look at the results, basically Obama turned out his voters in Marion County (Indianapolis), Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties (Northwest Indiana), Monroe County (Indiana University), Tippecanoe County (Purdue), St. Joseph County (Notre Dame + working class Catholics), Vigo County (Indiana State), Delaware County (Ball State), plus a few other counties, and it was just enough to overcome McCain's margins in the rest of the state.
Yes. I wasn't even living in Indiana any more by the time of the 2008 election, but I still have a lot of friends and family there and visit often, and I was staying up well past the time the race had been decided just so I could see them declare the Hoosier state.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The map of which nightmares are made of.
Well, made it thru the last 27 years of presidents before the one I served under.
Partly because he had such a gruelling, long exhausting primary against Hillary.
Being completely serious, he spent a lot of money in Indiana against Hillary in the primaries, and that state machine was flipped into their general election aparatus pretty shortly afterwards. The lengthy primary between Hillary and Obama left him in a stronger position for the general election, because it meant they had a turnout machine up and running in states that normally they wouldn't go near until September.
McCain, on the other hand, had 3 months of basically doing nothing. At the time everyone was really worried that his early win and the Obama / Clinton duel would leave the democrats fatally wounded in the GE, but it turned out to be the exact opposite.
Hillary has taken this lesson very much to heart - there's a reason she was spending money on primary battles in states that were never expected to be contested months and months ago. If you do it right, it's a good way to prepare the party for the GE by using the primary process to your advantage.
eBay Huckster
Member
that's part of why, despite everything, i'm actually a little bit glad sanders is dragging this out - especially considering the GOP is about to nominate a guy who apparently doesn't believe in the concept of a ground game
User 85168
Banned
This year's been the biggest indicator that there's only so far money can get you in elections, but money has bigger and bigger impact on campaigns as you go further down the ticket. Politico has a story about how the Senate races have been going, particularly how the GOP have and continue to outspend the Dems.
Democrats' cash crunch hurts bid to win Senate
Democrats' cash crunch hurts bid to win Senate
Aaron Strife
Banned
Obama won Indiana because he actually competed there.
His drop-off in MO, IN and GA is almost entirely attributable to the fact that his campaign chose not to make a play for those states in 2012 - Obama's vote share collapsed while Romney barely gained over McCain in terms of raw votes.
I don't blame them for prioritizing OH/VA/etc. as the fundamentals pointed to a much closer election (and if he couldn't win MO or GA in 2008 he probably wasn't winning them in 2012 under any circumstances), but it would be nice if Hillary decided to invest in those states to build the party up if she's looking at a landslide. Same with AZ which Obama wrote off in 08 because of home state status and again in 2012 because it wasn't that important - had he competed there then we might have been able to swing a Senate seat.
His drop-off in MO, IN and GA is almost entirely attributable to the fact that his campaign chose not to make a play for those states in 2012 - Obama's vote share collapsed while Romney barely gained over McCain in terms of raw votes.
I don't blame them for prioritizing OH/VA/etc. as the fundamentals pointed to a much closer election (and if he couldn't win MO or GA in 2008 he probably wasn't winning them in 2012 under any circumstances), but it would be nice if Hillary decided to invest in those states to build the party up if she's looking at a landslide. Same with AZ which Obama wrote off in 08 because of home state status and again in 2012 because it wasn't that important - had he competed there then we might have been able to swing a Senate seat.
Macho Madness
Member
LMAO Whoopi tore into Ben Carson on The View today.
Somewhat agree, but still have the lingering fear that complacency in "sure thing" states could hurt
Macho Madness
Member
... Is that what I think it is in the background?
The quirk of the calendar in 2008 where you had a gap between March 11th and May 6th with the only primary in-between being PA was huge.
Obama and both Clintons went all over Indiana and North Carolina. I saw Bill & Obama both stump within 30 min of my house.
The campaign got ramped up so early that it was before the voter registration deadline.
Heck, Dave Matthews came and did a concert at IU to register voters. Obama also had a contest where he'd play 3 on 3 basketball against a team of people who registered the most voters in Indiana.
Everyone was organized and all the Hillary & Obama people came together in the general. I got called multiple times asking if I had voted and asking me to volunteer (which I did on the weekends, couldn't help on election day).
Obama probably got a couple extra points just because that was the first time since the 60s that a Presidential candidate actually paid attention to Indiana.
Obama and both Clintons went all over Indiana and North Carolina. I saw Bill & Obama both stump within 30 min of my house.
The campaign got ramped up so early that it was before the voter registration deadline.
Heck, Dave Matthews came and did a concert at IU to register voters. Obama also had a contest where he'd play 3 on 3 basketball against a team of people who registered the most voters in Indiana.
Everyone was organized and all the Hillary & Obama people came together in the general. I got called multiple times asking if I had voted and asking me to volunteer (which I did on the weekends, couldn't help on election day).
Obama probably got a couple extra points just because that was the first time since the 60s that a Presidential candidate actually paid attention to Indiana.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah I wouldn't let up on OH/FL or anything but you know.
Obama's at +1.7 approval on Pollster and +2 on RCP. Bad news for Oblamblorf.
NihonTiger90
Member
... Is that what I think it is in the background?
It isn't.
Tesseract
Banned
This post is incredibly fascinating to me. I don't think I have anything extra-relevant to add to this discussion, but I've got a lot to think about now and just wanted to give you props for making me stop and consider this topic in a way I hadn't previously. Very cool post.
Macho Madness
Member
/r/S4P in a nutshell
Macho Madness
Member
Quinnipiac Poll
Obama approval is at 49/48, white men are the largest driver of the disapproval.
Obama's approval is at 92% among Democrats
62% believe Garland should get a hearing.
66% disapprove of the Republican party
Obama approval is at 49/48, white men are the largest driver of the disapproval.
Obama's approval is at 92% among Democrats
62% believe Garland should get a hearing.
66% disapprove of the Republican party
plagiarize
Banned
So I get that Arizona was a giant clusterfuck. What I don't get is all the anger on my Facebook wall blaming Clinton for it. Is that a remotely justifiable position or just entirely based on the fact that it likely helped her more than it hurt her?
Kids don't want Nintendo consoles nowadays yo
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It's been a long time since there has been such little red. I'm sure Yougov will come out with a poll that's like -8 though.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Macho Madness
Member
We discussed it earlier. Anyone blaming Hillary for it is a liar and misfiring on the wrong target.
The white men are clearly racist.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
It's unrealistic to believe major organizations are not run politically in terms of endorsements. PP is heavily involved with establishment democrat politics and the hierarchy that includes. The same could be said of the NAACP, many (not all) unions, etc. And obviously the same applies to outside organizations that support republicans.
Favors, money and influence can be involved. That's just how DC operates. Sanders has no standing with most establishment orgs involved with the democrat party because he's not really a democrat, he had bucked the party multiple times, and is a nightmare to work with.
QuiteWhittle
Member
Anyone blaming Clinton for Arizona is a moron.
plagiarize
Banned
Macho Madness
Member
She's the lady running for president that's easy to hate. There are reasons not to like her. They choose the shit that isn't true. This is the type of stuff I'm talking about when I say she's lost the benefit of the doubt.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked