Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Cause Cruz.
-
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
Cause Cruz.
Kasich considers reneging pledge to support nominee
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/27/john_kasich_wavering_on_trump_loyalty_pledge_.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/27/john_kasich_wavering_on_trump_loyalty_pledge_.html
shinra-bansho
Member
I would describe it as largely technocratic, but also pragmatic in terms of electoral necessity. In terms of policy I'd say the left in general defers often to what the wonks say - and to me this is a good thing. At other times it defers to what the mob says. Which one wins out at times varies.
It's probably how I'd also describe Hillary Clinton really.
Also, I don't really know why there's this meta discussion on moderation going on.
I know it won't change. I didn't think it was necessary to actually say that since it's rather obvious. The best we can do is try to move it closer to social democracy.
Hopefully automation forces people to discuss actual socialism but more likely it won't.
These guys are just astonishingly gutless.
ugaboga232
Member
I would describe it as largely technocratic, but also pragmatic in terms of electoral necessity. Which one wins out at times varies.
It's probably how I'd also describe Hillary Clinton really.
Also, I don't really know why there's this meta discussion on moderation going on.
Well part of that electoral necessity is keeping a decent cash flow and not tipping in the boat (most people probably don't want/care that much about heavy pharma/FDA changes other than weed and it pays to keep the status quo) which is frustrating if understandable in fighting the big cartoonish battles versus the republicans.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the wonks are pretty much never listened to in certain niche fields that are impactful but the public doesn't care too much about and it could cost them money (so basically good politicking).
Retromelon
Member
it was a joke about how hillary had 6 million individual banks bankrolling her campaignDaniel B·;199379298 said:
I really don't understand Kasich. He wants to be the moderate, compromise, anti -Trump candidate yet won't come out and say he won't support Trump?
Does he honestly think if Trump doesn't get it he'll need his support? I really don't understand what's behind these decisions, other than outright cowardice at this point. If someone wants to be the anti-Trump they need to be the anti-Trump. If Kasich wants to win more states then he needs to do something to seperate him from Cruz.
Does he honestly think if Trump doesn't get it he'll need his support? I really don't understand what's behind these decisions, other than outright cowardice at this point. If someone wants to be the anti-Trump they need to be the anti-Trump. If Kasich wants to win more states then he needs to do something to seperate him from Cruz.
Discussion of supporters has been extremely reductionist, especially for the Republicans. Pretty boring.
metalslimer
Member
The problem is that these guys still would prefer Trump in the White House over Hilary despite how much they hate him so if he is the nominee they will talk about how terrible Hilary is without explicitly campaigning for trump
In fairness, if you are willing to support Donald Trump or a party that supports Donald Trump, you are kind of racist. I don't feel bad about that claim at all.
I think Kasich is hedging for VP if he doesn't get the nomination.
shinra-bansho
Member
I hadn't checked for a while, so I thought I'd take a gander at OpenSecrets.
Google and the University of California are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. What are they really getting for it? You don't give something for free.
Big Tech and Big University buying the election.
Google and the University of California are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. What are they really getting for it? You don't give something for free.
Big Tech and Big University buying the election.
ugaboga232
Member
MORE GRANT MONEY PLEASE (jk it will all go to bioinformatics and will start gataca thanks to google).
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Why they don't just say, "Fuck, when I made that promise I didn't know that Donald was going to play cutesy with the KKK! Hell no I'm not supporting him!" is beyond me. Trump voters are already not going to vote for you if you're the nominee, because you'll get it by stealing it from "their guy", so why not try and look good for your own supporters and look out for the party's future by taking a stand against the dumbass demagogue? Except for Lyin' Ted Cruz, I can't imagine any GOPer is unaware of the drubbing they're going to get at the ballot box this year, so why not find your testicles and start fixing what Donald broke?
metalslimer
Member
I don't think Kasich wants to go anywhere near that vp slot. Although he probably would for Cruz despite the fact that Cruz is just as bad
Yep, and it's why they've made their beds.
Also why Trump has this air of dominance about him. His competitors are too afraid to attack him, or can't attack him in a way that would actually bring him down. Won't be a problem in the general.
You have no choice if you are a conservative and your choices are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. You have to choose between a major tax cut under Trump or a slight increase under Hillary. Maybe your top issue is expanded gun ownership rights or limiting abortion access. Virtually no Republican wants the Supreme Court to lean left. You have to vote Trump.
This is another way of saying "a candidate who is an overt racist is preferable to me than a slight tax increase/a limitation on gun rights/more abortions/losing the Supreme Court."
Which is fine, but yes, if that is what you think then you are explicitly accepting that electing an overt racist to the highest office in America is okay with you if you get your other policy objective.
I think my analysis is solid, frankly, but if somebody wants to argue with me that prioritizing stopping gun control over racism doesn't make you a racist, they are free to do so!
It renders all of their attacks pretty toothless. No one's going to take you seriously when you say "Trump is a liar, a crook, a terrible businessman, a racist, and a fascist. And the worst thing? If we nominate him he'll lose to Hillary Clinton." Romney was bad on this. Rubio was especially terrible in casting Trump's racism as primarily an electability issue.
Disaffected conservatives are frustrated with the establishment in large part because they feel that the party takes their votes for granted. This sort of thing is a signal that the party will cave if they insist on their way.
Well, Russian Tsars have a long history of getting assassinated, not that I condone such a thing.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
That's cause they refuse to attack him from the left on anything. It's kinda similar to Hillary refusing to attack Sanders from the right very often, but far worse since it's about policy and racism.
I can't believe how quiet Trump has been this week. I feel like he's barely running. Dude needs to be doing a rally a day in Wisconsin.
I'm fine with people "lobbying" superdelegates, though I think it is a waste of time as it runs counter to their design. They're probably not meant to be used to exert party control (if so, why not make it a larger %?). I think they're there to help a winning candidate get over the finish line faster so as to cut short the primary.
If they were supposed to vote with their states, they'd just be pledged delegates assigned with the state delegates. I mean, duh. If they were supposed to listen to people, they'd just do that.
I think the concept is neat. The republicans, believe it or not, have a similar concept...their states are just WTA. The superdelegates are the democratic version of WTA.
I'm fine with people "lobbying" superdelegates, though I think it is a waste of time as it runs counter to their design. They're probably not meant to be used to exert party control (if so, why not make it a larger %?). I think they're there to help a winning candidate get over the finish line faster so as to cut short the primary.
If they were supposed to vote with their states, they'd just be pledged delegates assigned with the state delegates. I mean, duh. If they were supposed to listen to people, they'd just do that.
I think the concept is neat. The republicans, believe it or not, have a similar concept...their states are just WTA. The superdelegates are the democratic version of WTA.
eBay Huckster
Member
wasn't that the only thing that team could do for a few seasons?
Macho Madness
Member
Well, that's basically what these people are asking to happen. Pledge the supers to the majority delegate winner of the state in WTA fashion.
User 463088
Banned
I also think, and maybe this is naivety, that Super Delegates force the person running to actually seek out endorsements and coalitions. Since a President is not a King/Queen, they have to have support, at the very least, within their own party. A President who has to fight against their own caucus is absolutely useless. Super delegates force a candidate to build bridges, especially among parts of the party they may have no experience. (A governor who never served in Congress may be woefully uninformed, as could a Senator who has no executive experience, until s/he sees things through the eyes of a governor.) This is probably more of a latent function, or a byproduct of exerting some form of party control, but it's still a possible positive.
Yes, and I ask my toaster every day to make me pancakes but das not how it werks.
User 463088
Banned
Until we got rid of Dawson, yes. God, the media in Cleveland was salty as fuck over that. I think Jimmy Donavan cried on television. (He didn't...)
But, again, that's not their function. A debate about a winner take all prize for states? Sure. That's cool. However, that's not their purpose at this time.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I'm sure you've thought about it so I won't make a hypothetical. But what are they supposed to do, willfully drop out of the electorate? Most of these people didn't even participate in the primary.
eBay Huckster
Member
Very true.
People may not agree with their existence, but when you understand who superdelegates are and what they are designed to do, it makes perfect sense why Hillary has the lion's share of them...outside of the obvious Establishment conspiracy, of course.
Also, can Chrome stop putting the damn squiggly line under "superdelegate"? That's how it's spelled, goddamnit!
User 463088
Banned
I'd recommend The Green Papers
It's not the most user friendly site but they're fast about updating delegates. The information from Demrace is pulled from there.
metalslimer
Member
It's been discussed before sanders not trying to court them before it became a necessity (I don't even know what he is doing now to court them) was not a great look for him. We can talk about how little the DNC has done to help Bernie but he has done nothing to earn a place as the head of the party. It's kind of emblematic of the problems he's had in reaching out to more than his base and it only makes sense if you Sanders thought he had no shot at this from the beginning.
It's not that voting for Trump over Clinton makes you a racist. It's that preferring Trump to Clinton makes you a racist. The idea is that non-racists would just not have this problem of having to hold their noses and vote for an overt racist in 2016 because their priorities would be such that a candidate being an overt racist is a lot worse than a candidate being a liberal.
Mrs. Manky
Banned
Perhaps he's still popular with the common people. Or he is just still supported by the people who do the arresting and the shit snatching. Those KGB connections could still be good.
It would be different if he had a host of people he wanted to tap to run in primaries and get people in congress with similar ideology as him but no, he keeps just talking about a revolution and rising up, well the tea party showed us how to rise up, hate their ideaology or not, they got people in office and forced people to listen to them.
Trying to get people congressional office after you are already sworn in and the presidential election tide is over is folly. People are going to expect things to get done based on that rhetoric.
Is the revolution just going to wait 2 years until mid terms?
If I'm following pigeon's reasoning, if the nonracist votes Trump, he has prioritized ______ over racism and is therefore a racist. Why would someone vote for Trump if they prefer Clinton?
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
*ahem*
But the idea here is that the problem is the preference for Trump, and pigeon is saying that voting for Trump shows that someone is a racist.
Like, obviously if I vote for the candidate promising me an extra $5 in my tax refund but who's also promising to round up all the brown people and put them in camps, that's not reasonably understood as me having a minimally decent amount of empathy for my fellow human beings, not being a racist, and just really really wanting that $5. The lack of empathy that requires is racist - valuing $5 over that kind of suffering is a character flaw.
What people who prefer Trump should do is stop preferring Trump. It is morally wrong to prefer Trump.
Yeah, this is pretty much it.
And to be clear, this, ultimately, is the catastrophe that Trump poses for the GOP, because (I believe) most Americans aren't actually overt racists. Even most white Americans aren't overt racists! Lots of them have been okay up til now saying that their policy preference was more important than a policy preference that just happens to be worse for minorities -- that's the point of the Southern strategy.
But when it comes to actively voting for a guy who has said the stuff Donald Trump has said, people are going to blink. My Republican father-in-law got upset with me the other day for even bringing up the election. He said it was the first time in many election years he wasn't planning to vote. Admittedly it's pretty early in the year, but honestly this is before the convention shenanigans, before oppo, before any debates with Hillary. It's only going to get worse from here!
The GOP knows this. This is why all the talk of disenfranchising Trump, or running a third-party candidate, or starting a dumb hashtag, is popping up. It's not about winning the White House -- it's not like Ted Cruz can win the White House. It's about avoiding an election in which every single GOP politician has to decide whether to be permanently linked with the idea that Mexican immigrants are mostly rapists and murderers, or whether to run against their own party's nominee. Because neither of those options are great! But one is a lot worse than the other.
Trump isn't just losing the election. Trump is tainting downticket races with white supremacy and covering the whole party in an ideology they've been keeping under wraps for fifty years -- an ideology that the average American staunchly rejects.
Yeah. This really is my stance. It's not necessarily morally wrong to prefer Romney -- maybe you're, like, dumb, I dunno. It's not morally wrong to prefer George W. (well it's morally wrong NOW but at the time, fine). But given Trump's statements and positions (as well as the fact that come on, he would be the worst president in history), I think it is a moral failing to prefer Donald Trump to basically anybody.
Funny enough - out of the 4 Trump supporters I know off the top of my head, only one is a straight white male.
1 Straight White Man
1 White (Atheist) Lesbian Woman
1 Black (Atheist) Lesbian Woman (married to the above)
1 Iraqi (Muslim) Straight Male
I'm curious as to whether anyone can guess why the bottom 3 would vote for Trump over Clinton (hint: unrelated to race).
AntraxSuicide
Banned
There's a Slick Willy and Bams TV show here somewhere.
You nailed the metaphor.
The more egregious thing here is that you're a Cleveland fan that knows about scoring points. Who told?
Income.Funny enough - out of the 4 Trump supporters I know off the top of my head, only one is a straight white male.
1 Straight White Man
1 White (Atheist) Lesbian Woman
1 Black (Atheist) Lesbian Woman (married to the above)
1 Iraqi (Muslim) Straight Male
I'm curious as to whether anyone can guess why the bottom 3 would vote for Trump over Clinton (hint: unrelated to race).
Funny enough - out of the 4 Trump supporters I know off the top of my head, only one is a straight white male.
1 Straight White Man
1 White (Atheist) Lesbian Woman
1 Black (Atheist) Lesbian Woman (married to the above)
1 Iraqi (Muslim) Straight Male
I'm curious as to whether anyone can guess why the bottom 3 would vote for Trump over Clinton (hint: unrelated to race).
Sex?
VendettaRed07
Member
Someone get Shu to send Bill a PSVR and DOA Xtreme 3 please. That should hold him for a term
Alas, nope. They are all solidly middle class with stable, pretty decent paying jobs (even by Seattle standards)
Aside: for those who are holding hope out for TheBern
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...te-caucuses-but-hes-about-to-run-out-of-them/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked