• 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 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.

pigeon

Banned
But this entire primary is covered in populist shit! Who knows what the rules are anymore? The only rule that seems to stick is Optics™ Matter.

We've seen 15 Republican candidates be wiped out and an entire party be thrown in shambles for not taking Trump seriously, ignoring him, and letting him play up his "Tough" brand.

I think this is exactly the wrong lesson to take away from Trump.

The message of Trump isn't that Trump is so smart he was able to destroy the GOP.

The message of Trump is that the GOP is such a decaying, incapable party that it was destroyed by Donald Trump.

Again, the GOP primary base is by no means representative of the general election base. That's why the polls are all showing that Trump is a terrible candidate that will get clobbered. Most Americans don't want to elect a "tough," loud racist as president.


And now we're linking to the Daily Caller.

I'm really not sure how much further we can go in pursuit of terribly sourced material that defends whatever position we're holding. Random 4chan threads? PhoenixDark's blog?
 
I didn't say it was mathematically impossible.It's not. But it's pretty damn unlikely at this point.

And you're missing the point of my post, which was in response to a poster who worked on Obama's 08 campaign saying that Bernie winning tonight showed that Hillary is a weak candidate. Hillary kept it MUCH closer against Obama than Sanders is keeping it with Hillary, to say that she's weak here is silly.

Except the point is that Bernie is really quite an extreme, weird candidate who should not be within even the fairly large gap between him and Hillary. That that many people are gravitating away from a more mainstream candidate suggests that said candidate has a weakness in their core appeal, and while Hillary has staunch Democrats on lockdown, she is only really strong overall in relation to the Republicans' shocking weakness, especially with independents. Heck, were there not SCOTUS seats obviously on the line, I'd be tempted to vote for Jill Stein, myself, and support liberalism by voting Dem downticket.
 

FlowersisBritish

fleurs n'est pas britannique
Bernie flat out saying that Hillary takes a "significant amount" of money from the oil and gas industry, and thus would be beholden to them as President, is not only a smear, it's a flat out lie, and several media outlets have actually hit Bernie on this.

And this is just in the last week.

He insinuates every bit of fundraising she gets is tainted, including pretending that donations from employees of a company are the same as the corporation donating. I'm sure others will add to this if they are so inclined.

Alright, let's move away from Hilary for a second, does the amount of money being poured into the political process in general not make either of you two a little bit uncomfortable?
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Wow 13% does not look good on Hillary. She should've scheduled some debates after March 15th and should've gone after him hard. This is just going to prolonge this ridiculous race even more.
 

XBP

Member
I think this is exactly the wrong lesson to take away from Trump.

The message of Trump isn't that Trump is so smart he was able to destroy the GOP.

The message of Trump is that the GOP is such a decaying, incapable party that it was destroyed by Donald Trump.

Again, the GOP primary base is by no means representative of the general election base. That's why the polls are all showing that Trump is a terrible candidate that will get clobbered. Most Americans don't want to elect a "tough," loud racist as president.



And now we're linking to the Daily Caller.

I'm really not sure how much further we can go in pursuit of terribly sourced material that defends whatever position we're holding. Random 4chan threads? PhoenixDark's blog?

um...

https://www.atf.gov/about/docs/report/new-york-firearms-trace-data-–-2014/download

and

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/143870-nyatfwebsite13pdf/download

Unless you're saying that the atf is not a reliable agency?
 

royalan

Member
I think this is exactly the wrong lesson to take away from Trump.

The message of Trump isn't that Trump is so smart he was able to destroy the GOP.

The message of Trump is that the GOP is such a decaying, incapable party that it was destroyed by Donald Trump.

Again, the GOP primary base is by no means representative of the general election base. That's why the polls are all showing that Trump is a terrible candidate that will get clobbered. Most Americans don't want to elect a "tough," loud racist as president.

We'll see, I do hope you're right.

Still, I do believe that Bernie has gone so negative against her at this point, that I don't think Hillary risks much by being a little tougher on him, since he's basically conceded the impression of running a clean campaign. I agree with Adam: avoid character attacks, hit him on the issues and his lack of specifics. Call him out when he retreats to his stump. If that Daily News article is any indication, the media is done coddling him. It won't be so easy for him to avoid the call for details from this point on.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Alright, let's move away from Hilary for a second, does the amount of money being poured into the political process in general not make either of you two a little bit uncomfortable?

I think you will find the majority of us here are for public matched funding or something similar. But, you can't pretend that's how it's setup.

The biggest core issue, is even if you have matched funding, Citizens United considers Super Pac funding as Free Speech; that would not be affected by new legislation putting a matched funding setup in place. So you either need to somehow get another case to the Supreme Court and they overturn it (which I think is exceedingly rare after such a recent ruling), or pass a constitutional amendment. The later being REALLY HARD because one party benefits far more from Citizens United than the other.

Direct to campaign funding is barely a concern because it's still limited per candidate to 2700 dollars for the Primary and 2700 for the General.
 

pigeon

Banned

That's a much better source than the Daily Caller, thanks.

I am not sure it proves the point that Hillary is lying to suggest that guns come into New York from Vermont. Those sources show that they do! But certainly the percentage is not very high, so suggesting that Vermont is heavily responsible would be false.
 

kess

Member
Should be interesting who picks this up and runs with it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/04/obama-vetoed-assad-overthrow-plans/

President Obama vetoed 50 plans put to him by the CIA to engineer the downfall of the Assad regime in Syria, according to a former operative working on the project.

According to a memoir he is publishing on Tuesday, Douglas Laux was part of a team tasked to find ways to put into effect Mr Obama’s assertion in August 2011 that “the time had come for President Assad to step aside”.

The CIA, under then-leader David Petraeus, ended up running a scheme to arm rebels from the “non-jihadist” Free Syrian Army - but it never reached a scale that outweighed regime support from Iran and the Lebanese militia Hizbollah.

Mr Laux now says that was because more elaborate schemes drawn up and backed not only by former General Petraeus, Hillary Clinton when secretary of state, and defence secretary Leon Panetta were all rejected by Mr Obama.
 

Bowdz

Member
Alright, let's move away from Hilary for a second, does the amount of money being poured into the political process in general not make either of you two a little bit uncomfortable?

Of course it does and were it up to me, I'd want to: a) overturn Citizens United, b) limit the election season ala UK and Canada, and c) cap the total amount of money that can be spent by a given campaign in the primary and the general. It is disgusting to think that each party is going to spend roughly $1.2 billion on the GE.

That being said, election and campaign finance reform are extremely hard issues to garner consensus on in this country and even when we are a leading to pass laws, they inevitablely make their way to the Supreme Court to get challenged (as we saw this week!). Therefore, the SC is THE issue in this election and I firmly believe that Clinton is the strongest GE candidate and gives us the best chance of putting a majority of justices on the bench which will work to uphold laws that keep elections free and fair and shoot down laws that corrupt the process.
 

XBP

Member
That's a much better source than the Daily Caller, thanks.

I am not sure it proves the point that Hillary is lying to suggest that guns come into New York from Vermont. Those sources show that they do! But certainly the percentage is not very high, so suggesting that Vermont is heavily responsible would be false.

I know it was the dailycaller but they link to those sources. Wouldnt post it if there was nothing of substance in the article. Attacking sanders on something thats factually not true wont help at all when he can talk about the facts and flip it over to her.
 
Alright, let's move away from Hilary for a second, does the amount of money being poured into the political process in general not make either of you two a little bit uncomfortable?

Of course it does.

But the alternative is letting one of the Rep fuckwits outspend the Dem 10 to 1.

I think the deck is stacked in any Dems favor this year. But I still don't want to see the only sane political party outspent by that kind of margin.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Of course it does.

But the alternative is letting one of the Rep fuckwits outspend the Dem 10 to 1.

I think the deck is stacked in any Dems favor this year. But I still don't want to see the only sane political party outspent by that kind of margin.

The good news is, if you can call it that, is political money has diminishing returns. Unfortunately, that also applies to down ticket races where 1 million dollars has a huge effect where typical fundraising may be a lot less.
 
The good news is, if you can call it that, is political money has diminishing returns. Unfortunately, that also applies to down ticket races where 1 million dollars has a huge effect where typical fundraising may be a lot less.

Well...

Trump was given over a billion in free press through this primary season. Without it, we'd likely be gearing up for Jeb, Walker, or Rubio right now.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Well...

Trump was given over a billion in free press through this primary season. Without it, we'd likely be gearing up for Jeb, Walker, or Rubio right now.

But Jeb! has billions to start with.
 

Holmes

Member
All in all, a good night for Sanders or Cruz. But another primary where Sanders underperform Obama 08, this time by about 5%... and we're supposed to believe Clinton's home state of New York will be one where he overperforms Obama. The only primaries Sanders has over performed Obama in were New Hampshire, Vermont and Oklahoma. Michigan is sketchy.
 
Using a really loose definition of that phrase...

That's basically Hillary in a nutshell. She's a New Yorker when it benefits her. She's a progressive when it helps her win primaries. Trump actually defended New York when it wasn't politically expedient for a Republican to do so. I doubt Hillary actually cares much about New Yorkers.
 

Holmes

Member
That's basically Hillary in a nutshell. She's a New Yorker when it benefits her. She's a progressive when it helps her win primaries. Trump actually defended New York when it wasn't politically expedient for a Republican to do so. I doubt Hillary actually cares much about New Yorkers.
That's what you project onto Hillary based on your asinine beliefs, and it's sad that you life in a fantasy world where this is true that only exists in your mind.
 
So being born and raised in Illinois is irrelevant? I believe the phrase "Home State" implies the place that you are from, unless I'm missing something.

That's not what it always means in politics.

Joe Biden's home state is Delaware, but he was born in Pennsylvania.
Obama was born in Hawaii, but his home state is Illinois.
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but his home state is Arizona.
 
What's John McCain and Ted Cruz' home state then?

Go on.

Ted Cruz grew up in Texas, hence the "raised" portion of "born and raised", if you want I can edit it to "born and/or raised". Ted didn't move to Texas just to fulfill a constitutional requirement just so he could take an open senate seat. John McCain is an army brat, he doesn't go around saying he's really anything, but I would say after living there and representing them for 30 years his home state is Arizona. None of this has anything to do with New York not being Hillary's "home state."
 
Ted Cruz grew up in Texas, hence the "raised" portion of "born and raised", if you want I can edit it to "born and/or raised". Ted didn't move to Texas just to fulfill a constitutional requirement just so he could take an open senate seat. John McCain is an army brat, he doesn't go around saying he's really anything, but I would say after living there and representing them for 30 years his home state is Arizona. None of this has anything to do with New York not being Hillary's "home state."
Can't we all agree that Walmart is Hillary's home state?
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I don't think there's anything wrong in politics with using home state to mean the state that you represented as an elected official, and arguing otherwise is sort of pedantic.
 
Ted Cruz grew up in Texas, hence the "raised" portion of "born and raised", if you want I can edit it to "born and/or raised". Ted didn't move to Texas just to fulfill a constitutional requirement just so he could take an open senate seat. John McCain is an army brat, he doesn't go around saying he's really anything, but I would say after living there and representing them for 30 years his home state is Arizona. None of this has anything to do with New York not being Hillary's "home state."

I mean, this is a completely pointless argument, but Bernie hasn't lived in New York in 50 years. Hillary has lived there since 2001. Was the Senator from there. Has her campaign headquarters there. The Clinton foundation is there.

New York is her home state.
 
That's not what it's meant in politics.

Joe Biden's home state is Delaware, but he was born in Pennsylvania.
Obama was born in Hawaii, but his home state is Illinois.
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but his home state is Arizona.

Barbara Boxer was born and raised in New York, her home state is California.
Nancy Pelosi was born and raised in Maryland, her home state is New York.
Ronald Reagan was born and raised in Illinois, his home state was California.

The list is so long and so obvious that it's kind of crazy just how wrong neurosisxeno is.

Ted Cruz grew up in Texas, hence the "raised" portion of "born and raised", if you want I can edit it to "born and/or raised". Ted didn't move to Texas just to fulfill a constitutional requirement just so he could take an open senate seat. John McCain is an army brat, he doesn't go around saying he's really anything, but I would say after living there and representing them for 30 years his home state is Arizona. None of this has anything to do with New York not being Hillary's "home state."

Let's just keep doubling down.
 
I don't think there's anything wrong in politics with using home state to mean the state that you represented as an elected official, and arguing otherwise is sort of pedantic.

I agree, but I still think it's odd that Hillary's "home state" is New York despite her not moving there until months before she was elected. A lot of the others mentioned lived in those areas for years before ascending to office--Reagan was an actor for decades and lived in Cali for years, Biden grew up in Delaware from the age of 9, etc. Hillary literally moved to NY after she started campaigning for that seat. I guess it boils down to the fact that most people got residence and worked their way up, and Clinton came in from out of state with pre-established name recognition and campaigned for a seat.
 
I agree, but I still think it's odd that Hillary's "home state" is New York despite her not moving there until months before she was elected. A lot of the others mentioned lived in those areas for years before ascending to office--Reagan was an actor for decades and lived in Cali for years, Biden grew up in Delaware from the age of 9, etc. Hillary literally moved to NY after she started campaigning for that seat. I guess it boils down to the fact that most people got residence and worked their way up, and Clinton came in from out of state with pre-established name recognition and campaigned for a seat.

That's an issue that the voters of New York could have brought up in 2000. Or 2006. Or 2008. To think that it's going to suddenly be an issue in 2016, her 4th state wide election, doesn't really make sense.
 
I agree, but I still think it's odd that Hillary's "home state" is New York despite her not moving there until months before she was elected. A lot of the others mentioned lived in those areas for years before ascending to office--Reagan was an actor for decades and lived in Cali for years, Biden grew up in Delaware from the age of 9, etc. Hillary literally moved to NY after she started campaigning for that seat. I guess it boils down to the fact that most people got residence and worked their way up, and Clinton came in from out of state with pre-established name recognition and campaigned for a seat.

If you hold elected office the state you represent is your home state.

Sanders home state is Vermont. Not New York.
 
I agree, but I still think it's odd that Hillary's "home state" is New York despite her not moving there until months before she was elected. A lot of the others mentioned lived in those areas for years before ascending to office--Reagan was an actor for decades and lived in Cali for years, Biden grew up in Delaware from the age of 9, etc. Hillary literally moved to NY after she started campaigning for that seat. I guess it boils down to the fact that most people got residence and worked their way up, and Clinton came in from out of state with pre-established name recognition and campaigned for a seat.

Well, she lives there now. Where do you think the e-mail server was?
 

pigeon

Banned
Your home state is any state where people are more likely to vote for you if you say that it's your home state.

That's why Hillary has like three.
 
Sanders home state is Vermont. Not New York.

I agree. But he's lived here for 40+ years and represented VTers for 32 of those. I'd say he was born in New York but VT is his home state. He moved here and worked his way up the local government to be a senator representing Vermont. He didn't move here and get residence for a political position tactically like Clinton did.

Your home state is any state where people are more likely to vote for you if you say that it's your home state.

That's why Hillary has like three.

I'll accept that answer.
 

Crocodile

Member
What? I have been to America many times, and I have many relatives who live there. I live literally 1 hour from the border. Sometimes I feel like I may even know more about America than Americans. And judging by the people who vote for Trump and Cruz, I may be right.

This makes you look worse? Hyperbole is not a flattering look and it doesn't make you look well informed. Having preferences in candidates is fine and a-ok. Lying (either to yourself or others) about the actual nature of these candidates just makes you look silly and come off as condescendingly holier than thou.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom