User 463088
Banned
As reported by popular vote, it would be American Samoa, Hawaii, Utah, Colorado and Idaho. Iowa, Kansas, Alaska, Washington and Maine are done by delegate equivalents or county convention delegates.
-
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
As reported by popular vote, it would be American Samoa, Hawaii, Utah, Colorado and Idaho. Iowa, Kansas, Alaska, Washington and Maine are done by delegate equivalents or county convention delegates.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I can't believe I'm quoting Lindsey Graham here, but "If you get shot you're dead. If you're poisoned you might find a cure for it."
Neither of the two is a good option, but there is a less bad option and I think that's Cruz. They're fucked either way, so they might as well not spend the next 16 years being known as the party that ran with Donald Trump, who will most certainly be remembered for his racism and xenophobia more than his "business acumen."
Yeah I mean the only problem is that Trump got more votes than Cruz.
The party's best hope was to force everyone out in July to coalesce around Bush (I'd say Rubio but Bush had the donor base). As soon as it was evident that wasn't going to happen, we should have known this would be a disaster.
The party's best hope was to force everyone out in July to coalesce around Bush (I'd say Rubio but Bush had the donor base). As soon as it was evident that wasn't going to happen, we should have known this would be a disaster.
How have people not learned to ignore Politico in the last 15 years?
He's probably bored
Macho Madness
Member
Politico Insiders: Macho Madness bored, Clinton camp in chaos
Manmademan
Member
and I've explained why you're wrong here.
Picking Trump will temporarily cause some of the base to sit out 2016- those that have a problem with Trump himself, who will absolutely not be running for anything after this year for any number of reasons. That base will be back in 2018, 2020, etc when a more palatable candidate (literally anyone else) ends up running for election. The party's inexorable slide into irrelevance for national contests for the next decade or two will continue because there is no way for the GOP to reverse this with the coalition it has built..
Picking Cruz or Kasich will cause those voting for trump to revolt IMMEDIATELY and PERMANENTLY split from the party- these voters are angry with the establishment as is, and saying "your votes don't matter, we like Cruz/Kasich more so they're the nominee" is suicide. The irrelevance that would have taken decades happens in a matter of months as those angry uneducated voters leave the GOP- either for a third party (headed by Trump, or johnny come lately trump supporters like Gingrich and Palin) and you end up with Tea Party II: Electric Boogaloo that the GOP establishment can't control at ALL. On top of this Cruz is exactly as toxic as trump is to the demographics the GOP needs to stay relevant on a national scale. Women hate Cruz. Minorities hate cruz. The youth vote hates cruz. His messaging is appealing ONLY to evangelicals, which the GOP already has 99% of. There is no benefit to picking him that will save them in the long run- he is just as bad if not worse than Trump.
Both scenarios are bad, but one of these is a goddamned disaster for the GOP.
Macho Madness
Member
You end up with an actual Tea Party, is what you're saying.
RustyNails
Member
Tesseract is finally banned. So glad that mindless brainfarts will stop polluting threads now.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Nah, in July no one thought Trump would matter. And it turns out the party had no appetite for Bush and he's a terrible campaigner so backing him would have been disastrous. The best thing the party could have done, at a time when they would have actually had the information to make such a decision, would have been for everyone that's not Cruz to drop out after Iowa. It was really a perfect storm for Trump, because I think if anyone other than Cruz had won Iowa, other candidates would have dropped out a lot earlier. In hindsight, the best play they could have made would have been to realize a lot sooner that Ted was their only Not-Trump option.
Manmademan
Member
yep. They were pretty much there as it was- tea party republicans in congress were absolutely not under boehner's control in any meaningful sense. Something like removing the nomination from the frontrunner to back the choice of the establishment will simply make that divide official and permanent.
I think the hypothesis at the time was that Trump would flame out as Gingrich/Bachmann/Cain/Santorum/etc had in 2012- a flash in the pan candidate that would implode after a few weeks and the base would coalesce around a romney-like centrist (i.e. Bush). This didn't happen and just about everyone was shocked, me included. Things that should have/would have tanked anyone else just did not work on Trump- and he got some very lucky bumps out of the san bernadino and paris attacks that made his messaging look spot on to a certain kind of voter.
Also, you're underestimating how much the establishment does not like Ted Cruz either. The man is toxic, the entire senate hates him, and he absolutely would not compromise and play ball for the good of the Party- Ted Cruz is in this to benefit Ted Cruz. he's only BARELY more palatable than Trump to the party establishment, and this is obvious given that the media and the party ignored him as an "establishment" option completely until there was literally no one else viable in the running.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
So let them split from the party permanently. If the republicans have any sense (they don't), they'll repudiate Trump at all costs and take their lumps for doing so, but ultimately rebuild as the party that outright said no to white nationalism and made a deliberate choice to field more forward thinking candidates. I don't think this is within their abilities, but that's their best choice. That they feel the need to fight for the kind of people Trump is winning over is exactly why they will never win the presidency again until they reinvent themselves, so saying "fuck you, we're going with who we prefer" is exactly their best option. Racist white men are not a ticket to the white house any more, so they need to stop giving a shit about them. That's politics.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Never, never, never will that happen with the amount of corporate and NRA money propping up its candidates.
He swings his arms a lot. She was standing in a dangerous place.
Manmademan
Member
That's the end of the republican party then, which is something that party leaders would PROBABLY want to avoid.
They've already done this in every way they possibly can. The establishment is in a full on panic trying to find a way to keep the nomination from him but it can't, because the coalition it built to sustain itself relies heavily on the votes of racist undereducated voters who love Trump.
We already have that party. It's called the democratic party.
I don't think you understand. A party split doesn't just mean they "dont get the presidency" it means they lose EVERYTHING from congressional races on down to city mayor. Democrats will control the presidency, the house, the senate, and nearly every governorship not in the deep deep south as the base the republican party built shatters. There IS no rebuilding that, not for decades. You will essentially have three parties- the Democratic Party at about 50% of the vote, the republican party at 25% of the vote, and the tea party at 25% of the vote- leaving democrats sweep every election in play for the forseeable future.
Even if 10 or 20% of the republican party (and not half) up and leaves they're in the same boat. Most races are decided within 5 or 6%. The GOP cannot afford for the party to split if it wants to stay viable.
Macho Madness
Member
Something out of nothing with that Bernie video I tell ya.
User 463088
Banned
Agreed. He's not my favorite person, but I doubt he was being an ass there. He just comes off as pretty abrasive
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I had no idea who they were, looked them up. That is one obnoxious CSS/JScript they have for images.
Yeah, I wonder how much his abrasiveness is what attracts people to him. The video is really at a no different level than the finger wagging bs during the debate.
Macho Madness
Member
This is not how you court superdelegates: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/713854814942314500
Macho Madness
Member
You pretty much have to be abrasive and steadfast to be a serious presidential candidate (unless you're naturally very charismatic like Bill and Obama) or you become a joke like Ron Paul and Lincoln Chafee. I've never seen someone so out of their element like Chafee.
Manmademan
Member
come on man, his dad just died
that's won't be the worst of it when she officially clinches it.
Macho Madness
Member
Look at that. This guy expected to be taken seriously. How he got elected to anything tells me the state of Rhode Island politics.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I don't understand why you're elaborating on points I had just made as if I don't understand the points I'm making. What you decided to say in two paragraphs, I summed up in "no one thought Trump would matter in July" and "If anyone other than Cruz had won Iowa, other candidates would have dropped out sooner."
A three-party system isn't sustainable in US politics. A 3rd party might prop itself up for a bit (George Wallace in '68 is looking especially relevant these days) but eventually the factions will coalesce. There's no graceful way to alienate racists from your party when your party is currently built on flirting with racists. If anything, though, Trump should be a wake up call that they need a drastic and immediate shift away from the platform they've been banking on since the civil rights act. Scapegoating minorities isn't as effective in 2016 when they make up 1/3 of the electorate as it was when they barely comprised 1/10. In coddling current republicans who will be dying soon, they're losing new voters to the democrats. There are people who are 18-30 right now that will be loyal to the democrats for the rest of their lives that republicans missed out on because they're still worried about letting baby boomers butter their bread. The longer they try to hold their untenable coalition together, the worse it's going to be. In my opinion, they might as well start on the path toward modernity by saying fuck you to Trump.
Manmademan
Member
Look at that. This guy expected to be taken seriously. How he got elected to anything tells me the state of Rhode Island politics.
it's a mystery why he was on the debate stage in the first place. Nationally he had even less support than Jim Gilmore.
I think the democrats were just desperate to have more candidates on stage viable or not since the republicans were fielding debates with 10 and 11 people in it. Chafee would never have gotten coverage in any other year.
To your point that a serious candidate needs to be an abrasive jackass to be viable though I just don't see it. You've already pointed out that neither clinton nor obama fit that bill, and those are two of the most popular democratic presidential candidates EVER.
On top of that Gore doesn't fit that mold, and neither does kerry. hell, carter doesn't either. On the republican side Romney doesn't, and neither do GW Bush or HW Bush. CHEYNEY does- but cheyney was notorious for being seen as a toxic personality that could never get himself elected to high office.
I think the "abrasive" thing is more the exception than the rule. The public likes their candidates to be somewhat personable.
I find it hard to believe that the split won't hurt the Democrats somehow in the near future.
Because we could barely come together with the fucking ACA.
With the GOP on its knees, Sanders' insane base might gain some clout and start a Tea Party of the left, emboldened by the arrogance of thinking "Well we Democrats will win anyhow, so fuck the establishment!! Let's do what we want!!"
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
While I agree with your premise, how is Cruz a path to modernity?
Man, there are some bitter ass HillaryGAF folks over a bunch of states that don't mean anything, lol. Everyone is still aware that the Dem primary is still over, even if the press (as always) desperately wants to try to make it a contest. Close contest = more page views. Same stuff happened with them desperately trying to make it look like Clinton had a chance against Obama near the end in 2008.
Also, I am repeatedly amused that any of you think this is even 10% as bad as the 2008 primary fight. There is a lot of revisionist history / cherry picking going on about Sanders 2016 versus Clinton 2008. The hardcore folks against the primary candidate will probably end up in the GOP camp, just like a fair chunk of the PUMA pro-Clinton / anti-Obama candidates ended up going to the GOP after 2008. This happens all the time.
Also, I am repeatedly amused that any of you think this is even 10% as bad as the 2008 primary fight. There is a lot of revisionist history / cherry picking going on about Sanders 2016 versus Clinton 2008. The hardcore folks against the primary candidate will probably end up in the GOP camp, just like a fair chunk of the PUMA pro-Clinton / anti-Obama candidates ended up going to the GOP after 2008. This happens all the time.
Social media is the overwhelming reason for this misconception, bar none.
User 463088
Banned
Are any of us really that bitter? I mean, we all knew this would happen going into this weekend. The margins were the only thing that we didn't know about.
Looks like Hillary's lead is 225 at the moment with the delegates roughly allocated, at least according to DemRace.
Looks like Hillary's lead is 225 at the moment with the delegates roughly allocated, at least according to DemRace.
Fair enough. I just figure people here should be smarter than that. This is the same shit as usual on the Dem side. Sanders supporters aren't any more insane then the Clinton supporters were in 2008.
Until Sanders' wife comes out and starts taking shots publicly at Clinton for being a woman, it's not even in the same stratosphere as Clinton / Obama 2008.
EDIT:
I suspect if Clinton had won those caucuses, there would be little to no complaining about how "undemocratic" caucuses are.
A lot of the post WA/HI/AK posts come across as serious whining by a bunch of folks whose candidate has already won.
I am also officially tired of Sanders Voter Suppression memes on FB as well, lol. I know many of my friends are feeling the Bern...but let it go, lol. Ignorance / Laziness > Malice when it comes to that kind of stuff.
Even if it were true, if the DNC were that far in the tank for Clinton, then there would be nothing Sanders could do.
Manmademan
Member
I wasn't elaborating, I was disagreeing. You stated that the best thing the party could have done was for everyone "not cruz" to have dropped out after Iowa. Uh, no, because there are very real and tangible reasons why the party would want to prevent a Cruz nomination just as much as they would want to prevent a Trump nomination. The party and the media has gone out of its way to not paint cruz as "establishment" because he isn't.
They might, but no time soon- and you're ignoring the very real possibility that those voters simply tune out of politics altogether, rather than going back to embracing the GOP. If those voters DO end up coalescing aound the party and making amends the GOP is right back where it started- heavily dependent on the votes of racists to pass anything.
and again, your opinion is naive. They aren't saying "fuck you" to TRUMP. They are saying "fuck you" to those that VOTED for Trump, which is an entirely different ball of wax. The fallout from doing that means the vast majority of everyone in elected office within the GOP will lose their jobs to democrats for the next decade or more. Full stop.
Do you ACTUALLY think this is a smart thing to do? Do you actually think those in office don't have any sense of self preservation?
adam and I know its over. The race is predictable now.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
He's not. Their best bet, while it would be disastrous short-term, would be to go with who ever the hell they want. I think they have to accept that they'll lose the next two elections big time if they want to have any hope of winning the presidency any time in the next 30 years. If they don't kick out the racists and white nationalists, the party is just going to erode slowly and have to go through this process of rebranding in 2040 instead of 2016. Waiting until 2040 might be a more graceful transition, but I'm not sure they want to lose the presidency for the next 24 years, and the supreme court with it. I mean, think of how dominant the republicans would have been without watergate, and then imagine that the democrats have a chance at that right now.
Manmademan
Member
lol what? a republican party split does nothing BUT benefit the democratic party.
That's some revisionist history there. Every single democrat voted for the ACA, along with two independents (one of whom was LIEBERMAN) and one republican that switched parties. And they did so on a drastically accelerated timeline due to Ted Kennedy dying in office and Martha Coakley losing a special election. Obviously some compromise was required there. had circumstances been different you would have seen a different ACA.
Sanders' base will go right back to supporting Clinton when he backs her in the general, which he will unless he wants his congressional career to be dead in the water.
Macho Madness
Member
Probably the lamest attack (besides the obvious sexist shit towards Clinton) I've seen in the Dem primary is that Bernie isn't a Democrat.
Besides party politics being a weird thing in the first place, Bernie is officially a Democrat now. He has no plans on switching back to Independent after this election. They wouldn't have made him a superdelegate if they thought he wasn't sincere. We need more progressive voices like him keeping the party from becoming a corporate monstrosity.
Besides party politics being a weird thing in the first place, Bernie is officially a Democrat now. He has no plans on switching back to Independent after this election. They wouldn't have made him a superdelegate if they thought he wasn't sincere. We need more progressive voices like him keeping the party from becoming a corporate monstrosity.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I'm sure they have a sense of self-preservation, but that's also what's going to keep younger republicans from ever being able to win elections outside of certain regions. The current crop will ride the wave of dog whistle racism and xenophobia into the dirt, sticking the generation that follows with the task of trying to forge a winning coalition out of the dry bones of what their predecessors had banked on.
Did he actually say this?
If anything, corporate money will push the GOP away from explicit racism. The GOP's overlords will need to do what they can to create a stronger party that will pursue policies which help them.
Problem is, a huge amount of GOP voters don't care too much about neoliberalism. They vote Republican because of their own racism or identity.
I thought bernie was a registered independent still in his state?
although Wikipedia has him as a democrat now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
although Wikipedia has him as a democrat now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Manmademan
Member
I don't think you understand here that the GOP has no other option BUT this.
The republican party made a deliberate decision to build a coalition out of racists upset with the civil rights act and lunatic evangelicals in the 1980s. This is who their party IS. They can't simply allow those voters to walk and stay viable any more than they could decide to run on a "we're not really down with the whole jesus thing" platform. Either one abandoning the GOP means the party is irrelevant on a national AND local scale.
There is no realistic path to "forging a new coalition" here because the damage they've done to black voters, hispanic voters, LGBT voters, and Women has been SO extensive there's no coming back from it.
Voting for Cruz over Trump does nothing to fix that problem. Nothing. All it will do is obliterate the platform they currently have that much faster.
I actually love this cycle so much because it's finally made it clear just how dependent on racists and bigots the GOP is. For so long they've engaged in "dog whistle" politics that courted the racist vote while allowing "establishment" republicans to pretend the messaging and the party really wasn't that racist- when minorities and gays knew full well just how racist it was.
Now they're forced to confront that a full 40% of the party is toxic and they aren't viable without them.
Slackerish
Member
User 463088
Banned
I suspect if Clinton had won those caucuses, there would be little to no complaining about how "undemocratic" caucuses are.
A lot of the post WA/HI/AK posts come across as serious whining by a bunch of folks whose candidate has already won.
I am also officially tired of Sanders Voter Suppression memes on FB as well, lol. I know many of my friends are feeling the Bern...but let it go, lol. Ignorance / Laziness > Malice when it comes to that kind of stuff.
Even if it were true, if the DNC were that far in the tank for Clinton, then there would be nothing Sanders could do.
Actually, I would have been bitching about them being undemocratic no matter who won. I did it when Hillary won Iowa and Nevada. They're stupid, stupid things that are just terrible. I've never been a fan of them. It just so happens that the candidate with whom I most identify has a caucus problem. I, at least, have consistency on this issue from 2008
As to the whining...well, the problem is that the most logical reading of the contests has a pro-Hillary bias. It's like in 2008 when Hillary would win a few states and cut into Obama's lead. It was a nice moral victory, but it didn't really change the calculus of the race that much. That's the benefit of an early lead.
I think the "OMG FRAUD" thing just comes from being inside the bubble. If you're active on Reddit, you're probably surrounded by Bernie people 24/7. I'm sure a lot of them really are in shock that he doesn't do better. I mean, everyone they know loves him, so how could he possibly lose anything. The fault has to lie elsewhere. If Hillary does win, they'll need a come to Jesus moment. I don't know what that will take, though.
The moment Trump got away with calling Mexican rapists, the GOP party leadership should've started doing everything they could to stop him.
But they didn't. Because they did't want to alienate his base.
SMFH.
cartoon_soldier
Member
They only empower the most dedicated people. They are also run by parties as opposed to the state.
Officerrob
Banned
I don't even know what Blue Nation Review is. With that said, some mild trolling is fine, but the game shit, the same gifs, over and over, spread across multiple threads, fuck that
Manmademan
Member
I don't think that's accurate. The GOP has been doubling down on extremely racist language in regards to mexicans LONG before Trump showed up. Joe Arpaio has been a thing for years and the republican party has done nothing but embrace the guy as a hero. Trump didn't say anything that hadn't been said many times before- they didn't "do everything they could to stop him" because the base THEY built- not Trump- believes it.
I've been hanging out on this board for a decade and this is literally the first time I've heard the phrase "blue nation review."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked