-
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
And if that fails, then what?
Macho Madness
Member
Click the Facebook link. They're going to primary this guy because he won't give his superdelegate to Bernie because Bernie won the state.
Manmademan
Member
there's no realistic way to do this. Let's assume that Trump's base is the "white nationalists" you want to eject. That's somewhere around 35-40% of republicans nationally.
The party immediately becomes non viable at all levels of government without them. They won't be able to compete with democrats ANYWHERE but hyper local elections where democrats don't exist.
Even ejecting half that number dooms the party. Its simply TOO BIG a chunk of the base. This election has made it clear just how dependent the GOP is on bigots and racists to get themselves elected.
And that aside, lets say you do kick them out. you're going to have to convince democrats to leave the democratic party and become republicans...with what? Supply side economics? Who loves Jesus more?
Basileus777
Member
That form of libertarianism doesn't exist in American politics and it's incredibly difficult to imagine it coming about anytime soon. Without the social justice aspect, it's mainly a platform based around dismantling the safety net, promoting deregulation, and policies that favor only the rich. That's not something one can win national elections with without social conservatism driving voters. This sounds more like utopian dreaming than anything, racists and people who believe that religion is important in politics aren't disappearing in the next decade or so, and without them no right wing party can survive.
Except for stats like: Bernie's campaign has now received, in excess of, 6 million individual contributions!
Manmademan
Member
exactly. As I mentioned with the Specter example if tea partiers, racists, and evangelicals feel the republican party is abandoning them they'll simply hijack it and primary moderate republicans out of office if they have to- assuming they simply don't go third party.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The Democrats realigned in the 90s, becoming more fiscally conservative and more socially liberal (and the last of the Dixiecrats flipped or retired out of politics). I don't think they're due for a realignment anytime soon.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
You forget that Cruz is Trump+the belief that we should stone gays and abortion doctors and Trump+Cruz are getting 75% of the vote.
Let's be honest here: maintaining white supremacy for a good chunk of the GOP base trumps virtually ANY issue you can think of that's important to the GOP party leaders: gun rights, abortion, gay marriage, healthcare, etc.
Trump represents the implicit if not explicit "return" to when minorities had little if any power in government, education, healthcare etc
Trump represents the implicit if not explicit "return" to when minorities had little if any power in government, education, healthcare etc
Manmademan
Member
the same argument applies to Cruz as well. he has even less support than Trump does, but Cruz was effective at exploiting the evangelical vote this round which allowed him to fundraise and have a hefty GOTV effort in the areas they existed.
He basically had them to himself after Carson flamed out.
Neither one would have done well in a smaller field where they had to compete with only one or two well funded establishment candidates.
Indeed. If you take Trump out of this election, and say that the GOP establishment decides around a Bush / Rubio ticket; then you have Bush v Cruz v Carson in the primary - Bush ends up with 60+% of the vote in most states. Especially if you have Romney, Paul Ryan, GWB, Rubio, all campaigning for him.
As for a "modern conservative party"...let me think about this. I'm planning on talking to one of my friends tonight (the one who got me to work for Obama initially) who is pretty plugged in politically; and maybe we can brainstorm a hypothetical "modern" conservative party. He'll be bugging me for advice on helping his local BLM chapter (Minneapolis) anyway; so I'll trade that for a fun hypothetical conversation.
Macho Madness
Member
Just did the math (based off of 538). If supers voted for the winner of their state only, their delegate totals would be:
Clinton: 1,516
Sanders: 1,151
Clinton: 1,516
Sanders: 1,151
Retromelon
Member
So? Hillary has, tooDaniel B·;199365858 said:
From every bank on wall street
I think the Republicans should be trying to eject strong Trump supporters if they want to compete for the presidency, but it is not clear to me that they have the will to do it. They've undercut their own argument against Trump every step of the way by refusing to actually say that Hillary Clinton is preferable (or just that conservatives should sit out if Trump is the nominee). That said, many Republicans may just be thinking that they can do okay without the presidency and that this won't be an issue for the House or state governments for a few more years.
I feel like they're instead aiming for one of two things regarding Trump. Some people want to deny Trump the nomination and then basically hope that he goes away and that they don't have to change anything. Sure, they'd like to do something to appeal to other voters but it's not like they're going to support immigration reform or whatever - they've learned from what they did after 2012. Others want to let Trump crash and burn in the general and hope that this convinces his supporters that the Republican establishment knows best. I think it's more likely that they end up blaming the establishment for the loss, however.
I feel like they're instead aiming for one of two things regarding Trump. Some people want to deny Trump the nomination and then basically hope that he goes away and that they don't have to change anything. Sure, they'd like to do something to appeal to other voters but it's not like they're going to support immigration reform or whatever - they've learned from what they did after 2012. Others want to let Trump crash and burn in the general and hope that this convinces his supporters that the Republican establishment knows best. I think it's more likely that they end up blaming the establishment for the loss, however.
Basileus777
Member
No he doesn't. Bush would be in danger of losing even 1v1 to Cruz in this cycle, he certainly doesn't get 60% in most states. Trump has hurt Cruz more than anyone by blocking him in areas that would be Cruz's strongest regions. Even without Trump this primary was going to be a long battle.
can you game it out the rest of the way with expected wins to see what the delegate count would be in such a scenario? I know we don't have expected margins but try to guess as close as possible using http://demrace.com/?share=fTNxtzyj
cartoon_soldier
Member
I thought he already switched from that to all should vote for me because I am the best candidate?
Your analysis utterly ignores the Clintons' long history with the black community, which was the reason her ties could survive it, and the hard work she had to do to heal the divisions of 2008 even so. Republicans have no ties to fall back on anymore and their transgressionsespecially if they fall in line behind Trumpare greater by orders of magnitude. It's a fairy tale.
Ogrekiller
Member
Hilarious.
Manmademan
Member
Yep. Clinton definitely didn't get a "free pass" for what she pulled in 2008, but putting that aside to work in the Obama administration (even if she didn't get VP) and gaining obama's tacit endorsement as preferred candidate in 08 goes a long way to fixing that.
The republican party has no path to achieve anything like this. They've burned bridges with every minority group they could find, then salted the earth just to be sure.
Macho Madness
Member
He suggested that maybe they should vote for the winner of their respective state this morning. I think it was just a food for thought note but some Bernie people are taking it seriously.
The alternate right is particularly unpleasant. Here is something that could serve as a summarization of their beliefs - from the source itself. Of course, the homophobia, racism, and white nationalisn are understated, but that's what comment sections are for!
The ideology is rooted in an unholy union of outdated deterministic psuedoscience and a misinterpretation of religion rooted in the naturalistic fallacy - demonstrating once again why I find the notion of teleology from both the religious and the non-religious dangerous when not properly contextualized and restrained.
As someone who supports transhumanism (approached with cautious regulations as opposed to a free-market scramble to maximize profit, of course), their views are diametrically opposed to my own. They are a foolish rejection of our potential as humanity to grow beyond what we are or once were (and in their case, what never existed at all) in pursuit of the perpetuation of the very archetypes that enslaved them. The alternate right is an ideology almost inseparable from racism, sexism, and homophobia. I'd post a more detailed takedown, but I'm at an Easter dinner at the moment.
However, it still does amuse me that even the alternate right thinks the current Republican party is heartless.
The ideology is rooted in an unholy union of outdated deterministic psuedoscience and a misinterpretation of religion rooted in the naturalistic fallacy - demonstrating once again why I find the notion of teleology from both the religious and the non-religious dangerous when not properly contextualized and restrained.
As someone who supports transhumanism (approached with cautious regulations as opposed to a free-market scramble to maximize profit, of course), their views are diametrically opposed to my own. They are a foolish rejection of our potential as humanity to grow beyond what we are or once were (and in their case, what never existed at all) in pursuit of the perpetuation of the very archetypes that enslaved them. The alternate right is an ideology almost inseparable from racism, sexism, and homophobia. I'd post a more detailed takedown, but I'm at an Easter dinner at the moment.
However, it still does amuse me that even the alternate right thinks the current Republican party is heartless.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Cruz wasn't getting that much of the vote until he became a convenient funnel for the anti-Trump vote, once Rubio turned out to be such a goddamn joke. In a normal election, he'd probably get like 20-25%, which is about where he was before Trump started to look like a threat. Not to mention he's probably more popular for being THE anti-Obama candidate who shut the federal government down to fight the massive budget deficits (which a shit-ton of people in the country, a.k.a. outside the little MMT-accepting bubble that PoliGAF tends to be, think is going to cripple the country and which entitlements certainly are a big contributor to) and THE candidate who is unabashedly in favor of using Christianity to guide his policies, rather than anything particularly racial. I'd posit that 90+% of the GOP voters who REALLY care about race are probably voting Trump.
Edit: And that link is pretty nuts, but I do think the left's slow but palpable embrace of the academically-derived postmodern denial of human nature is eventually going to see things swing back the other way to at least some degree.
His campaign has flip flopped on super delegates more times then I can count.
For all the straight out cry against them before the primary, this wierd 'nuance' that has overcome his campaign about them is amusing.
That was some seriously scary shit. I literally could not tell the difference between a Bernie supporter and the Tea Party reading those comments.
Hope superdelegates facing this backlash stay strong.
First off, that's going to happen anyway. Like, the choice here is becoming a nonviable white nationalist party and staying that way forever, or becoming a nonviable non-racist party that has a path forward to become a functional party again.
Secondly, the white nationalists will probably keep voting Republican for a long time, for the same reasons that the African-American vote will be Democratic for a long time. It's not like that 40% of the Republican base just stays home. They have no alternatives. It's a two-party system, remember?
I don't really find it difficult. I'm trying not to reason too much from my own experience, but here in the San Francisco Bay area there are a lot of people who are basically libertarians primarily because they think the government is inefficient and ineffective, but still vote Democratic because they're not racists. Those voters are winnable by a conservative platform that abandons social issues.
Again, police reform is a libertarian issue. Information security is a libertarian issue. Drones and noninterventionism are libertarian issues. These are all winning arguments for a party that's willing to acknowledge social justice.
I think it's clear that Democrats have a strong advantage primarily because of their strength on social issues. So if the Republicans can give up on social issues, obviously that advantage might dissipate.
You're going to have to expand on this.
Manmademan
Member
I'm not sure what you're implying now. You want the GOP to "kick out" the white nationalists, but still have all of them voting for them in lockstep? GTFO of here with that, you can't have it both ways.
If the democrats decided to "kick out" black voters from the party you can be damned sure they wouldn't still keep showing up to polls. At best you'd see smaller, local third party efforts pop up, at worst they would stay home rather than be exploited by a party that told them to get lost. Republicans are even worse off, since the people they want to kick out can and will simply primary candidates they see as being too moderate. Kick them out and they'll install their own extremists instead. This isn't theory, it happened all over the place in 2010.
I don't think so. Police abuse of power has been a cornerstone of minority concern (and thus, democratic concern) long before anyone thought up the word "libertarian." Who do you think it was that endured fire hoses and attack dogs during the civil rights movement? Who do you think it was that rioted after the rodney king verdict? Who do you think is behind #BLM? LIBERTARIANS?
This issue is something that democrats (and black democrats specifically) have been screaming about long before any of us were alive. It's only getting traction NOW because everyone and their grandmother has a smartphone and these assholes are getting caught at the things that republicans (libertarians included!) have been saying blacks were lying about for years.
No one cares about information security. Well, not no one but this is a non issue to the vast majority of the american public. They will all happily keep using their iphones and androids no matter what official policy is on information security, and we all know this.
Again, the public doesn't care one whit about brown people being blown up with drones. It's been going on for years with a collective yawn. And noninterventionism is EXTREMELY unpopular. Go around campaigning on cutting off foreign aid to Israel. See what happens to you.
As has been pointed out before, white nationalists and evangelicals are in no mood to "give up" social conservatism. If the republican party pivots AWAY from it and tacks back to the center, they'll find their representatives voted out in the primaries and replaced with extremists. There is no way to divorce themselves from social conservatism. There are simply too many of them that are too heavily invested in the party.
Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn 2m2 minutes ago Washington, DC
In other words: Clinton's big Arizona win say more about the rest of the contest than her big losses in western caucuses
Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn 8m8 minutes ago Washington, DC
A little unexpected: adding post-3/15 improved Clinton's remaining vote in this model. Helped her in closed primaries, many of those left
EDIT: DAMNIT
In other words: Clinton's big Arizona win say more about the rest of the contest than her big losses in western caucuses
Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn 8m8 minutes ago Washington, DC
A little unexpected: adding post-3/15 improved Clinton's remaining vote in this model. Helped her in closed primaries, many of those left
EDIT: DAMNIT
Macho Madness
Member
I only did PA, NY, CT, DE, MD, PA, CA, and NJ because those I consider lean Clinton.
Factored in:
10 point win in NY
4 point win in CT
5 point wins in the rest
Clinton 2360 on June 7th. Even if she wins nothing else, and doesn't count the delegates she'd win in the states she loses.
Essentially, this is likely not the strategy to save the Sanders campaign.
Ogrekiller
Member
And_Gignac
Member
Dinners of 300k a ticket are excessive, and show how disconnected the bourgeoisie is by indulging themselves in their privileged, narcissistic selfs. Sad!
uh oh. Slow transformation into trump fan
it also does not factor in the reality in that the states she's won have more superdelgates than his states. Its a winner take all argument which wold ironically benefit Hillary.
These Tesseract teas.
User 463088
Banned
I mean, she doesn't have to win the nomination with just pledged delegates. Obama didn't. It's a total non-issue, unless you've decided to live in a world in which math is now standing in the way of the Revolution.
Real talk, if I had that much money I'd be all over that.
Tesseract got banned we don't need someone to replacd him
Macho Madness
Member
No, that is exactly what I factored in. Provided she wins the states I provided by those margins AND the superdelegates vote based on who won their state, she will clinch the nomination and these crazy Sanders supporters can stop hyperventilating.
Who wouldn't?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked