• 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.
R

RastaMentality

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
An electoral plurality that fails to meet the threshold for victory. And running Trump would be a bigger disaster for Republicans going forward than would kicking him to the curb, even at the cost of the election.
Click to expand...
Americans have become used to and believe that whoever wins the plurality should win the nomination. And I don't think it's particularly unreasonable.
 
P

Plumbob

Member
I'm almost more excited to see Ted Cruz steal the nomination. That way, the impending loss is entirely in the establishment GOP's lap
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Metaphoreus said:
"Stealing" implies that Trump has the nomination in the first place. I'd hope reasonable Republicans would recognize that. If he gets the 1,237 delegates, so be it; otherwise, a Cruz loss is preferable to even a Trump win in the GE.
Click to expand...

Would you be okay with that if the roles were swapped? Say some super awesome minority constitutionalist that would kill it in the GE doesn't quite get enough delegates to win the nomination and a Trump-esque candidate wins the nomination on the second ballot. Should reasonable republicans just throw their hands up and accept that?
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Plumbob said:
I'm almost more excited to see Ted Cruz steal the nomination. That way, the impending loss is entirely in the establishment GOP's lap
Click to expand...

"I'm the candidate people think looks slimy. Like a cheat. Like a serial killer. Remember when I made some deals to win the nomination from the person you voted for? That was fun. But please, remember, I might look slimy. Hell, I might even be a disgusting, awful person, but please, remember to vote for me in November, thanks"
 
B

Beer Monkey

Member
Plumbob said:
I'm almost more excited to see Ted Cruz steal the nomination. That way, the impending loss is entirely in the establishment GOP's lap
Click to expand...

Imagine if he gets the nom and then evidence comes out that he funneled PAC money to pay off a mistress. Jesus, the salt there would be.

Hey, I can dream.
 
S

studyguy

Member
So what are we going to see in the debate?
I fully expect Sanders to be hit with the super delegate hitlist questions along with democratic whores comments, his followers seem to be doing their best to fuck up the optics right before NYC.

I mean really, what is there to gleam in this debate that wasn't already uncovered as far as serious policy in those NY Daily News interviews. Both of those will be far more informative than this debate will probably be.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
balladofwindfishes said:
I put stealing in quotes because while he'd technically be getting the nomination legitimately, to a large group of people (including Republicans who don't even support him), it would be seen as Cruz stealing the election from Trump, who won with the most votes.

While it's not stealing, it's "stealing" and Cruz would probably get absolutely crushed in the general due to all the Republicans just staying home because their vote doesn't even matter anyway apparently. Future primaries would likely have awful turnout as well.
Click to expand...

That all may be true, but it would be preferable for the Republican Party to go down in flames because they ran a conservative than for the party to go down in flames because they ran an incoherent authoritarian.

RastaMentality said:
Americans have become used to and believe that whoever wins the plurality should win the nomination. And I don't think it's particularly unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not unreasonable, but neither is it unreasonable to require an absolute majority for victory, as the rules currently do. I think a lot of the opposition to Cruz winning in the face of a Trump plurality can be assuaged by a transparent process at the convention following pre-established rules. Not all of it--some people will reject any outcome where Trump loses, including Donald "Nobody voted in Colorado!" Trump himself--but at least the opposition from reasonable Republicans can be dampened.

PBY said:
Why is that bad though?
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose it's not if you'd like to see the Republican brand tarnished for a generation.

Veritigo_X said:
Would you be okay with that if the roles were swapped? Say some super awesome minority constitutionalist that would kill it in the GE doesn't quite get enough delegates to win the nomination and a Trump-esque candidate wins the nomination on the second ballot. Should reasonable republicans just throw their hands up and accept that?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't like that, but I wouldn't complain about the election being stolen (or "stolen"), either. That's the whole purpose of laying out neutral rules in the first place--everyone agrees ahead of time on a fair process and then respects the results of that process. They don't have to like the resulting nominee, and they certainly don't have to vote for that nominee, but it's absurd to complain after the fact that the game was rigged because your guy lost.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
eBay Huckster said:
Another bit of polling info from Morning Consult: 66% of Sanders supporters don't wanna pay more than $1K in new taxes (or more than 10% of their income) for his economic program

this also includes 56% (or 61% for the percentage) of voters age 18-29
Click to expand...

This to me is more evidence that the majority of Sanders voting support is the anti-Clinton contingent and not the Pro-Sanders one.

Bernie supporters don't want to hear it. They stick their fingers in their ears. But the amount of real, true Bernie supporters are small and overall insignificant. This is why there is no so-called revolution and why Bernie would actually be a bad nomination choice.

Basically there are Clinton supporters, Not Clinton supporters, and Berniestans...in that order.

His ideas aren't as popular as his vote totals would lead one to believe.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
adam387 said:
So, the official Bernie line is "Hillary didn't apologize for CPT, therefore Whoregate doesn't matter."

Okay.
Click to expand...

It's always "Hillary did it first!" even when it's not really comparable at all (like Bernie's tax returns)

Metaphoreus said:
Well, I suppose it's not if you'd like to see the Republican brand tarnished for a generation.
Click to expand...
It already was. Republicans are basically unelectable for the presidency due to alienating minorities. African Americans, especially, are not going to vote Republican for a very long time.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
It's always "Hillary did it first!" even when it's not really comparable at all (like Bernie's tax returns)


It already was. Republicans are basically unelectable for the presidency due to alienating minorities. African Americans, especially, are not going to vote Republican for a very long time.
Click to expand...

Ben Jealous just wouldn't shut up about it on MSNBC a few minutes ago. Just...ridiculously irrate over something that, outside Reddit, I haven't seen people lose their shit over.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
MSNBC just found a guy who is a registered Democrat. Going to vote Bernie in the primary, so that he can vote for Trump in the General...because Trump is the lesser of two evils?

I.....I don't.....
 
S

Slayven

Member
adam387 said:
MSNBC just found a guy who is a registered Democrat. Going to vote Bernie in the primary, so that he can vote for Trump in the General...because Trump is the lesser of two evils?

I.....I don't.....
Click to expand...

I need a diagram, cause I am not following the logic.
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
It's wayyy too early for these sorts of polls to actually pan out.

There were polls that had Herman Cain beating Obama during the 2012 primaries.

There's way too much to account for. Convention shenanigans, Bernie or Bust voters waking up, people actually bothering to research Kasich's unsavory aspects.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think the only real obstacle for Kasich if he was the nominee is Kasich himself. He's moderate on a lot of issues, and conservative on the stuff I don't think will tilt this election; no matter how much liberals have tried to turn anti-abortion stuff into a reason to vote it seems like the pro-choice-motivated vote has never been as powerful as the pro-lifers.

If the whole narrative people have spun about Kasich getting irritable and having a major temper are true, though, then I could see his weaknesses becoming much worse as he reacts badly to the usual attacks, blunders, or gaffes.

I agree though that betting on polls one way or another at this point is stupid.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
Fuchsdh said:
Honestly I think the only real obstacle for Kasich if he was the nominee is Kasich himself. He's moderate on a lot of issues, and conservative on the stuff I don't think will tilt this election; no matter how much liberals have tried to turn anti-abortion stuff into a reason to vote it seems like the pro-choice-motivated vote has never been as powerful as the pro-lifers.

If the whole narrative people have spun about Kasich getting irritable and having a major temper are true, though, then I could see his weaknesses becoming much worse as he reacts badly to the usual attacks, blunders, or gaffes.

I agree though that betting on polls one way or another at this point is stupid.
Click to expand...

Requoting this because I can't say it enough, but adding onto that last line:

eBay Huckster said:
late response but it's less than a .5 R² at this point, still
Click to expand...

Polls are empirically less than 50% predictive at this point (we're still at about 210 days out, and the trendline since '56 actually gets a little worse for the next few weeks)
 
U

User 463088

Banned
The same reporter, and IDK what her name is, sorry, was asking this woman who she was voting for. She said Hillary, and the reporter just went like a little crazy and was like "BUT YOU'RE A TEACHER! FREEE COLLEGGGEEE!"

It's too early to drank, right?
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
I made rare political post on FB, citing the story that the DNC and Clinton campaigns are suing over Arizona voter suppression and got this in reply:

Isn't this a bit like a rapist seeking custody of a child conceived in said rape? The DNC is just as complicit.
Click to expand...

I asked him how the DNC was complicit and got linked to an anonymous blog conspiracy theory.

And that's all for a fairly neutral article about doing something unambiguously good.

No wonder Hillary support is largely quiet online.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Fuchsdh said:
Honestly I think the only real obstacle for Kasich if he was the nominee is Kasich himself. He's moderate on a lot of issues, and conservative on the stuff I don't think will tilt this election; no matter how much liberals have tried to turn anti-abortion stuff into a reason to vote it seems like the pro-choice-motivated vote has never been as powerful as the pro-lifers.

If the whole narrative people have spun about Kasich getting irritable and having a major temper are true, though, then I could see his weaknesses becoming much worse as he reacts badly to the usual attacks, blunders, or gaffes.

I agree though that betting on polls one way or another at this point is stupid.
Click to expand...

I think being against gay marriage is going to be an issue that will be important overall, but more low key and not mentioned all that much.

Kasich fails horribly at defending gay marriage. The entire GOP does. At some point they'll wake up and realize gay marriage is popular to the general public.

Ignatz Mouse said:
No wonder Hillary support is largely quiet online.
Click to expand...
Yea, it's frustrating.

At least here I can support Hillary without being called a Republican or a shill or a corporate apologist. Or have my reasons for not liking Bernie taken way out of context. It's more than a little annoying being one of the most liberal people in my family and be called a Republican because you don't bow down to St Sanders.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Metaphoreus said:
I wouldn't like that, but I wouldn't complain about the election being stolen (or "stolen"), either. That's the whole purpose of laying out neutral rules in the first place--everyone agrees ahead of time on a fair process and then respects the results of that process. They don't have to like the resulting nominee, and they certainly don't have to vote for that nominee, but it's absurd to complain after the fact that the game was rigged because your guy lost.
Click to expand...

I think it's important that almost nobody actually feels like they've agreed ahead of time on a fair process here. Nobody even knows how these things work. Look at how often the Sanders people discover new establishment plots like rounding. The process needs to try to look fair to people who are only learning about the details of the process while it's in the middle of screwing them.

Lots of people only have this sense that the result of the nomination process should reflect the will of the voters. I think probably you could sell the Not-Trump majority banding together to nominate Cruz. But this looks a lot worse if Cruz only gets the nomination because a lot of Trump delegates defect after the first ballot, especially if/when Trump makes a big stink about it instead of endorsing Cruz. The problem for Cruz is that I expect he's done a better job subverting Trump delegates than Rubio delegates.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Marist was just in the field. They normally have a 3-4 day polling cycle. So, they stopped their last poll and started this one?

Ugh. Just let the Democratic whores vote.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Bowdz said:
Awwwwwwwwwwww shit son. Watch, it'll be Bernie +20 riding the wave of the preemptive Catholic voters and his dank meme skills.
Click to expand...

Early leak:

Birdie Sanders 99%
$hillary Killton -40%

Her poll numbers fell so hard, they arrested her since they couldn't arrest her for BEN GHAZZI! or EMAILS!
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
Bowdz said:
Awwwwwwwwwwww shit son. Watch, it'll be Bernie +20 riding the wave of the preemptive Catholic voters and his dank meme skills.
Click to expand...

"The Catholic vote" has always been a weird statement to me growing up Catholic. Admittedly, this was in a more liberal town, but the priests' homilies on election day were all about prayerful reflection rather than telling you to vote, and they usually actively came down on the people who would leaflet the cars in the parking lot with statements along the lines of "voting for Hitler if he was pro-life would be preferable to voting for a pro-choice candidate".

Maybe it's different in still-strong Catholic enclaves in cities like Chicago and Philly, but it seems like it's not a demo that is good for much besides being fairly representative of the electorate as a whole. White Catholics lean right, minority Catholics lean left.
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
20160414201758653.png


pfff, these "awful last two weeks" have hurt him so much :´(
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Fuchsdh said:
"The Catholic vote" has always been a weird statement to me growing up Catholic. Admittedly, this was in a more liberal town, but the priests' homilies on election day were all about prayerful reflection rather than telling you to vote, and they usually actively came down on the people who would leaflet the cars in the parking lot with statements along the lines of "voting for Hitler if he was pro-life would be preferable to voting for a pro-choice candidate".

Maybe it's different in still-strong Catholic enclaves in cities like Chicago and Philly, but it seems like it's not a demo that is good for much besides being fairly representative of the electorate as a whole. White Catholics lean right, minority Catholics lean left.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is such a diverse and evolving demographic that it seems very challenging to pin down " the Catholic vote". That's why most political analysts are so perplexed as to why Sanders is going to the Vatican right before the primary. I don't think it will help him or hurt him, but seems like a politically frivolous trip to take during the primary.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Remember, Ted Cruz is an evil person:

The radical views on Cruz’s team do not stop there. Retired Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin also was named an adviser after having said things such as “Islam is evil. Islam is an evil concept.” As he puts it, “Islam is not a religion and does not deserve First Amendment protections,” because “those following the dictates of the Quran are under an obligation to destroy our Constitution and replace it with sharia law.” He’s also declared that Christians should “go on the offensive” to prevent Muslims in America from building any more mosques. (Boykin also preached a couple of years ago that when Jesus returns, he will be carrying an AR-15 assault rifle.)

Two of Gaffney’s colleagues at his center, Claire Lopez and Fred Fleitz, are also on Cruz’s team. A recent example of Lopez’s attitude and style was her commentary on President Obama’s speech at a Baltimore mosque in early February. She began her diatribe this way: “Perhaps it’s because he was making faces in Qur’an class instead of paying attention to his teacher. Or maybe he just has a selective memory about what he was taught as a young Muslim student in Indonesia. Whatever the reason, President Barack Obama got a lot of things factually wrong… .” Her piece promoted one of the anti-Muslim movement’s standard themes — that mosques are outposts of terror and communities should not let them be built. “A mosque is not simply the Muslim version of a church, synagogue or temple,” she wrote. “Mosques are established not only as places of prayer and worship, but also as centers for indoctrination, the dispensing of shariah justice, the stockpiling of weapons, and the launching of jihad.”

Still another member of Cruz’s team is Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and a regular contributor to National Review. McCarthy, whose claim to fame is that he prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, regularly argues that terrorism is embedded in Muslims’ religious beliefs — that there is an “irrefutable nexus between Islamic scripture, sharia supremacism, and jihadist terror.” Among believers’ different visions of Islam, he wrote in one column, “the most dynamic is the conviction that Islam is an alternative civilization determined to conquer the West by force, by political pressure, by cultural aggression, and by exploiting Western civil liberties (liberties that are forbidden in the sharia societies Islamists would impose).”
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ed-cruz/?postshare=3091460650559990&tid=ss_tw

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/9/americas-first-muslim-president/
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Gotchaye said:
I think it's important that almost nobody actually feels like they've agreed ahead of time on a fair process here. Nobody even knows how these things work. Look at how often the Sanders people discover new establishment plots like rounding. The process needs to try to look fair to people who are only learning about the details of the process while it's in the middle of screwing them.

Lots of people only have this sense that the result of the nomination process should reflect the will of the voters. I think probably you could sell the Not-Trump majority banding together to nominate Cruz. But this looks a lot worse if Cruz only gets the nomination because a lot of Trump delegates defect after the first ballot, especially if/when Trump makes a big stink about it instead of endorsing Cruz. The problem for Cruz is that I expect he's done a better job subverting Trump delegates than Rubio delegates.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely another dynamic at work here given that the rules are set up at the convention, not by voters at large. That's why I said the process by which Cruz defeats Trump would have to be transparent.

I don't have a problem with Trump delegates defecting to Cruz, because I understand that after the first ballot, the delegates become unbound. Trump--the really smart guy who is supposed to have the best team and understand the art of the deal and all that--could have been working to benefit from that fact from the beginning, as Cruz has been. Instead, he's only proven that he's all talk and no skill. Frankly, I'd find it satisfying to see him lose the nomination because of his organizational incompetence.

But others may not view it that way. In the end, you could be right, and Republicans could largely resent a Cruz victory over Trump through what they view as establishment shenanigans. We'll just have to wait and see.
 
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 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer 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