• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Diablos

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
It's very hard to win Dem primary without supers.
Click to expand...
I mean she should have a clear enough lead when it's all said and done for supers to not overstate their purpose

Hillary has tons of states favoring her coming up. Not sure how or why, logically speaking, this could be worse than 2008 -- unless Bernie goes crazy and tells Dems to get fucked.
 
C

CCS

Banned
Plinko said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-convention-favors-ted-cruz-over-donald-trump

I've read this article and still can't understand the reasoning behind it. It makes no sense at all.

Choosing Cruz at the convention over Donald "I am the only person who immediately walked out of my 'Ali G' interview" Trump (who will assuredly have more delegates) will be the biggest political blunder in decades.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't get it. It's not like Cruz is some magical incredible candidate who'll win the election either.
 
M

Maledict

Member
Neither candidate will win, but they are the only two who have a rational chance at getting. If they run Cruz and he wins, then things are fine. If he loses, then they can say they ran the most conservative of candidates and lost - which allows them to start pivoting to the middle for 2020, which is what they have wanted to do for years but been unable to do so thanks to the tea party, talk radio, etc. You'll probably see Cruz pick a moderate VP who will then be lined up to be the nominee in 2020.

If Trump wins, then it doesn't allow them to do anything. He'll go down in flames, and then Cruz will get the nomination in 2020. It sets them back far longer if it's Trump as the nominee. At some point, they have to run Goldwater V2 and have the huge loss, and better to get that done now than further down the line.
 
M

Makai

Member
EdUnm4v.jpg
 
M

Maledict

Member
The Hilary paradox always amuses me.

1) She panders for votes, she changes her opinions based on popularity, how can you trust her?

2) Why does she disagree with Sanders plans, why won't she replace Obamacare with Universal health care like he will, it's clearly the better plan!
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Maledict said:
Neither candidate will win, but they are the only two who have a rational chance at getting. If they run Cruz and he wins, then things are fine. If he loses, then they can say they ran the most conservative of candidates and lost - which allows them to start pivoting to the middle for 2020, which is what they have wanted to do for years but been unable to do so thanks to the tea party, talk radio, etc. You'll probably see Cruz pick a moderate VP who will then be lined up to be the nominee in 2020.

If Trump wins, then it doesn't allow them to do anything. He'll go down in flames, and then Cruz will get the nomination in 2020. It sets them back far longer if it's Trump as the nominee. At some point, they have to run Goldwater V2 and have the huge loss, and better to get that done now than further down the line.
Click to expand...

If they choose Trump, it keeps their party intact.

If they go against the voters and choose Cruz, the party probably splits.
 
M

Maledict

Member
Plinko said:
If they choose Trump, it keeps their party intact.

If they go against the voters and choose Cruz, the party probably splits.
Click to expand...

Yes but the same is true the other way - if they chose Trump then a quarter of the party is voting for Hilary. Or even a third party candidate.

The party is fucked this cycle, no matter which way it goes. There isn't a compromise candidate out there who can fix this, so the only solution is to minimise the damage. That's definitely Cruz - whilst he's toxic, and absolutely bad for them, nominating Trump will break for party for cycles to come (and potentially destroy them down ticket in a way Cruz won't).
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
Bernie's campaign manager has basically laid out a strategy that goes through majority white states. While Michigan was a big upset for them, the trend didn't play out in Ohio. I also really hated Bernie's Illinois campaign basically around tying Hillary to Rahm, but in the end that didn't work out for them either.

Hillary has won more white states than Bernie has won mixed racial states, so I don't know why nobody is talking about what will happen in November if minorities don't turn out at Obama levels for Democrats. Dem path to White House is through minorities not white voters.

The reason caucuses are bad is because they require a lot more time commitment from voters than just showing up and voting. Plan and simple, you can't just have the most dedicated people involved in a democracy.
Click to expand...

Hawaii and Alaska are super diverse. And he won by landslides. I think the "white liberal" narrative that 538 started and was paraded non-stop here is kind of dead. It was since he almost won Nevada, really.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Diablos said:
Unless there's a cord in the way or something else happened which is highly speculative I would think the video speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Sanders has always lacked a degree of politeness or finesse (not sure how to describe it), but I don't think that video is particularly worse than normal.
 
M

Maledict

Member
Re-reading one of my 2008 campaign books out of morbid curiosity, and Obama tried to use the NAFTA attack against Hillary in Ohio back then as well. Didn't work out for him either.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Melkr_ said:
Hawaii and Alaska are super diverse. And he won by landslides. I think the "white liberal" narrative that 538 started and was paraded non-stop here is kind of dead. It was since he almost won Nevada, really.
Click to expand...
There's much to be said for the caucus system overwhelmingly favoring Bernie though. That overshadows yesterday's news. He does well with a super dedicated turnout system but if it's a primary, Hillary almost always wins.

Suikoguy said:
Sanders has always lacked a degree of politeness or finesse (not sure how to describe it), but I don't think that video is particularly worse than normal.
Click to expand...
It's definitely worse than normal. Bernie defense force will downplay it while asking for Wall Street speeches from Hillary or something.

Regardless, he's not the man he makes himself out to be and I wouldn't care so much except for he's capItalizing on, at least to an extent, Hillary's perceived weakness of being too morally and politically flexible over the years.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Diablos said:
Unless there's a cord in the way or something else happened which is highly speculative I would think the video speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

That Bernie despises his wife to the point he chastised her for standing next to him in front of everyone seems a lot more speculative than the idea that there was a practical reason not to stand where she was.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Maledict said:
Yes but the same is true the other way - if they chose Trump then a quarter of the party is voting for Hilary. Or even a third party candidate.

The party is fucked this cycle, no matter which way it goes. There isn't a compromise candidate out there who can fix this, so the only solution is to minimise the damage. That's definitely Cruz - whilst he's toxic, and absolutely bad for them, nominating Trump will break for party for cycles to come (and potentially destroy them down ticket in a way Cruz won't).
Click to expand...

no it isn't. One route (giving Cruz or Kasich the nomination) is the GOP saying "fuck the voters" and giving the nomination to someone who lost to the frontrunner- possibly by VERY large margins. This will likely permanently split the party, since why would the 40% or so who voted for trump ever bother voting republican again?

The other route (Trump taking the nomination) would result in those who supported the establishment sitting out for a cycle or racking up protest votes for hillary, but they'll be back for the 2018 midterms as usual.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Manmademan said:
no it isn't. One route (giving Cruz or Kasich the nomination) is the GOP saying "fuck the voters" and giving the nomination to someone who lost to the frontrunner- possibly by VERY large margins. This will likely permanently split the party, since why would the 40% or so who voted for trump ever bother voting republican again?

The other route (Trump taking the nomination) would result in those who supported the establishment sitting out for a cycle or racking up protest votes for hillary, but they'll be back for the 2018 midterms as usual.
Click to expand...

Long term, though, backing Trump as the republican nominee is poisonous among an electorate that will be 67% white in 2020, 64% white in 2024, 60% white in 2028, etc etc. They're kind of in a no win situation unless Cruz somehow turns it around and overcomes Trump. Not to mention they need a higher percentage of the white vote even if the demographic make up doesn't change just because their extremism (and especially Trump) has alienated hispanic voters to the point that they could break 80/20 for the democrats in November, as opposed to the 65/35 or so it was with Romney.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Maledict said:
Yes but the same is true the other way - if they chose Trump then a quarter of the party is voting for Hilary. Or even a third party candidate.

The party is fucked this cycle, no matter which way it goes. There isn't a compromise candidate out there who can fix this, so the only solution is to minimise the damage. That's definitely Cruz - whilst he's toxic, and absolutely bad for them, nominating Trump will break for party for cycles to come (and potentially destroy them down ticket in a way Cruz won't).
Click to expand...

Right, but you're looking at it the wrong way:

Trump is a short-term problem. They lose in 2016, recover, move on.

Choose Cruz and screw over the voters, though? That's irreparable damage to the party. When I say "The party splits," I mean the party splits irreparably.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
OrangeGrayBlue said:
Long term, though, backing Trump as the republican nominee is poisonous among an electorate that will be 67% white in 2020, 64% white in 2024, 60% white in 2028, etc etc. They're kind of in a no win situation unless Cruz somehow turns it around and overcomes Trump.
Click to expand...

Backing Cruz isn't any better- he's spouting the same poisonous rhetoric Trump is, if not worse.

There IS no candidate they fielded this year that could have/would have turned around the demographic disaster they have looming in front of them- they're pretty much "stuck" on a track to being a regional party that does well in congressional and gubernatorial races.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
adam387 said:
Cock uses are undemocratic. They're ridiculous. I thought that was something we all agreed on.

Hillary should have thanked her supporters last night.... both of them in all three states. I hate that shit.
Click to expand...

It's amusing since I thought those were votes last night. They LIST them as votes on websites. So it's understandable where someone might get that idea.
 
N

noshten

Member
adam387 said:
Cock uses are undemocratic. They're ridiculous. I thought that was something we all agreed on.

Hillary should have thanked her supporters last night.... both of them in all three states. I hate that shit.
Click to expand...

I agree that everyone should be able to vote/primary/caucus electronically, is automatically registered and can change party affliation in a matter of minutes. Also there should be a full VR Caucus experience which would be the VR caucus and delegates there are doubled. While everyone who goes to vote in person should get milk and cookies.
Election day should also be a national holiday
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Suikoguy said:
It's amusing since I thought those were votes last night. They LIST them as votes on websites. So it's understandable where someone might get that idea.
Click to expand...
It gets even more confusing....the numbers from Hawaii are actually raw vote totals, I believe. Those aren't delegate equivalents. The Hawaii caucus isn't a real caucus, it's a Presidential Preference Poll. Hawaii has a primary later...after the conventions. Figure that one out.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
There is no way the WA caucus turnout was only 20,000 when it was 250,000 in 2008. Stop using the state delegate counts as turnout!

Caucuses are a form of vote suppression but it's also up to the state party what they want to do so whatever
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom