• 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.
V

Voysa Reezun

Banned
Atomic Playboy said:
Why don't people realize that there is absolutely no requirement for the party nomination process to listen to the will of voters? It's a nomination for a private party, not a right enshrined by the Constitution. Don't like what the Republican Party is doing in the nomination process? Don't vote for members of that party. Don't like the Democrats use of Superdelegates? Don't vote for members of that party. This outrage that a private party isn't beholden to the will of the people is based on a complete misunderstanding of how parties work and it needs to stop.
Click to expand...

In theory this is true, but in practice, the voter has been conditioned for the past 40+ years, so ten or so presidential elections, to believe that their will is the major influence of the party itself.

In particular, it's dangerous for the GOP to have spent the last thirty years talking about how political structures routinely fail the voter and then, having cultivated an audience of voters who feel this way as their base, use their party structure to disenfranchise them (let's agree that by the letter, no one is being disenfranchised in the purest use of the word, but that this will be the strong perception of the GOP's primary voters).

Ultimately, the party needs its voter base more than its voter base needs the party.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
Cruz's preachy bible Twxas evangelical religious voice does not mesh well in the North East, even his body language and gestures are too preacher.

i dont get why Republicans think that this is their Never-Trump counter
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
adam387 said:
Bernie's son has three adopted children. The story goes Hillary is attacking them for not being his real grandchildren. It's so laughable, especially with Hillary's record on the adoption system and, you know, not being a terrible human being.
Click to expand...
Oh for fucks sake I'm sure Hillary doesn't even fucking know that.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Cesare Borgia said:
Clooney is a smart guy, really upends the stereotypes about celeb political backers.

"The system" isn't going to be blown up anytime soon, and the "revolution" has clearly failed. It seems quite clear that when Sanders loses his fervent supporters will basically say "well, that's that" and move back to being apathetic/not caring. Nevermind that a Supreme Court seat is open right now which could hold the key to destroying Citizen's United. They don't care about the process, so I have no interest in giving them any sense of importance as if they hold the key to November. No.
Click to expand...

Good point. There's a vocal but relatively small subset of Sanders supporters who are made up of people who are typically disengaged from politics (e.g. rarely vote), mostly get their political news from sources like USUNCUT and H.A. Goodman, think the Supreme Court is not that big a deal, and have a very strong animosity towards Clinton for a variety of reasons.

I think there's a tendency for a this subset to take the obviously true statement that Clinton needs Sanders supporters in November (a Democratic candidate cannot write off over 40% of the Democratic primary electorate) and take it to mean that she needs that subset's votes in particular, often framed in terms that Clinton and her supporters need to be on their hands and knees begging for their votes. Quite frankly, this group is small, hard to persuade, and unreliable. She absolutely does not need their votes and trying to convince them is largely a waste of time that could be better spend going after lower hanging fruit (including other groups of Sanders supporters).

This is not to suggest that Clinton doesn't need to work on persuading Sanders supporters in the general, but that doesn't mean that she needs allof them. She can, and will, prioritize.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Butts-a-plenty said:
l44ofCn.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't know what this has to do with politics, but I still approve this message.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Box of Kittens said:
Good point. There's a vocal but relatively small subset of Sanders supporters who are made up of people who are typically disengaged from politics (e.g. rarely vote), mostly get their political news from sources like USUNCUT and H.A. Goodman, think the Supreme Court is not that big a deal, and have a very strong animosity towards Clinton for a variety of reasons.

I think there's a tendency for a this subset to take the obviously true statement that Clinton needs Sanders supporters in November (a Democratic candidate cannot write off over 40% of the Democratic primary electorate) and take it to mean that she needs that subset's votes in particular, often framed in terms that Clinton and her supporters need to be on their hands and knees begging for their votes. Quite frankly, this group is small, hard to persuade, and unreliable. She absolutely does not need their votes and trying to convince them is largely a waste of time that could be better spend going after lower hanging fruit (including other groups of Sanders supporters).

This is not to suggest that Clinton doesn't need to work on persuading Sanders supporters in the general, but that doesn't mean that she needs allof them. She can, and will, prioritize.
Click to expand...

particularly young women 18-29 and some white working class in the mid-west.

You also have to look at it in the context of the primary. Sanders young raw vote total is a small subset of the total demographic. Maybe 3-4 million(3%) out of 35-40 million eligible voters 18-29. Only 45% of them voted in 2012
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Dana Bash gave Bernie another chance to tell her what legislation Hillary was compromised on due to donations. He still couldn't do it...since it doesn't exist. But thanks anyway. You tried.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Box of Kittens said:
Good point. There's a vocal but relatively small subset of Sanders supporters who are made up of people who are typically disengaged from politics (e.g. rarely vote), mostly get their political news from sources like USUNCUT and H.A. Goodman, think the Supreme Court is not that big a deal, and have a very strong animosity towards Clinton for a variety of reasons.

I think there's a tendency for a this subset to take the obviously true statement that Clinton needs Sanders supporters in November (a Democratic candidate cannot write off over 40% of the Democratic primary electorate) and take it to mean that she needs that subset's votes in particular, often framed in terms that Clinton and her supporters need to be on their hands and knees begging for their votes. Quite frankly, this group is small, hard to persuade, and unreliable. She absolutely does not need their votes and trying to convince them is largely a waste of time that could be better spend going after lower hanging fruit (including other groups of Sanders supporters).

This is not to suggest that Clinton doesn't need to work on persuading Sanders supporters in the general, but that doesn't mean that she needs allof them. She can, and will, prioritize.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the thickheaded "I'm going to write in Bernie's name, THAT'LL LEARN 'EM!" constituency isn't going to be persuaded. At best, they don't "trust" Hillary and nothing she can do or say as a candidate will change that thinking. And probably as president.

My friend (whose top concern is undoing Citizens United, gets most of his political news from Young Turks and has already told me he'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee - note the "if" because there's always still that possibility!) doesn't believe Hillary will appoint a Supreme Court Justice who would overturn CU because "Why would someone take all that SuperPAC money and then work to undermine SuperPACs?" and that Hillary would earn a lot of respect in his eyes if she actually did it. If you're subscribed to that line of thinking, nothing Hillary has promised (a justice who would overturn it, support for a constitutional amendment against it) is going to reach you because you're already starting from a position of "I don't trust you." It's hard to argue with gut feelings.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Worrying about people that made up their minds ex-ante that someone is a criminal and by definition cannot be trusted is pointless.

There are two possibilities:

1) We will never get their vote
2) They are posturing as a campaign strategy that makes Sanders look relatively more electable, due to losing relatively less primary voters


They are a distraction at best. Energy spent trying to convince them is better spent rallying others to actually engage the apathetic rather than the delusional to show up at the polls.
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
Macho Madness said:
adam387 said:
Bernie's son has three adopted children. The story goes Hillary is attacking them for not being his real grandchildren. It's so laughable, especially with Hillary's record on the adoption system and, you know, not being a terrible human being.
Click to expand...
Oh for fucks sake I'm sure Hillary doesn't even fucking know that.
Click to expand...

For anyone else who's interested, Breitbart reported on it.

I didn't realise it was from January (I don't remember any of my comrades posting this ;) ), but I still think it qualifies as a Bill level "foot in mouth" comment, as it comes accross as a dig against Bernie's "extraordinary" grandchildren.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
gutter_trash said:
Cruz's preachy bible Twxas evangelical religious voice does not mesh well in the North East, even his body language and gestures are too preacher.

i dont get why Republicans think that this is their Never-Trump counter
Click to expand...

Shhh...don't tell them! Please!

My favorite part is hearing people say Cruz will perform better in a national election. You mean the guy with super far-right ideas that are even further right than Trump? The guy who proposes an 18% VAT tax that would crush the lower- and middle-class? That Ted Cruz?

Bwahahahaha!
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Daniel B·;201200426 said:
For anyone else who's interested, Breitbart reported on it.

I didn't realise it was from January (I don't remember any of my comrades posting this ;) ), but I still think it qualifies as a Bill level "foot in mouth" comment, as it comes accross as a dig against Bernie's "extraordinary" grandchildren.
Click to expand...
Only if you want it to be.

To me it comes off as a dig on politicians who bitch and moan about entitlements and "What kind of world will we leave to our grandchildren?" even though they don't actually care and are actively working to screw over their grandchildren by gutting entitlements.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Daniel B·;201200426 said:
For anyone else who's interested, Breitbart reported on it.

I didn't realise it was from January (I don't remember any of my comrades posting this ;) ), but I still think it qualifies as a Bill level "foot in mouth" comment, as it comes accross as a dig against Bernie's "extraordinary" grandchildren.
Click to expand...
Most people didn't report it because, you know, itsfuckingnothing.gif
 
R

royalan

Member
adam387 said:
Dana Bash gave Bernie another chance to tell her what legislation Hillary was compromised on due to donations. He still couldn't do it...since it doesn't exist. But thanks anyway. You tried.
Click to expand...

Yep. He gave a hearthearted mention of the bankruptcy bill, but then seemed to immediately walk it back.

And people say the media are counting Bernie out? If this were a different election season, and there wasn't a revolution occurring on the right that the media badly wants to see reflected on the left, this would be the point that Bernie Sanders would be crucified. His central attack on Clinton, one that he's been lobbing his entire campaign, a pillar of his stump speech, he can't substantiate with a single example. It's fraudulent.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Plinko said:
Shhh...don't tell them! Please!

My favorite part is hearing people say Cruz will perform better in a national election. You mean the guy with super far-right ideas that are even further right than Trump? The guy who proposes an 18% VAT tax that would crush the lower- and middle-class? That Ted Cruz?

Bwahahahaha!
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Cruz has basically the same unfavorability ratings as Clinton in most recent polls and yet his policy positions (which are significantly less popular nationally than Clinton's) haven't even been touched on. Ignore his general ugliness and lack of likeability, once the dems start tearing into his positions on tax policy, immigration, and social equality, he'll be below Clinton and around Trump in terms of unfavorability (and that's not factoring in how much "stealing" the nomination from Trump will tank his favorability).
 
H

hawk2025

Member
I'm positive favorability ratings matter.

I just don't see how Sanders' would not plummet if the attack ads started coming out. There are far too many low-hanging fruit.
 
T

Trouble

Banned
DWS was actually really good on Meet the Press today. Had sensible answers to everything, refused to answer an idiotic question from Hugh Hewitt.

Also, Clooney was on and did a good job of explaining why fundraising is important (downticket races).
 
M

Makai

Member
Wilsongt said:
Sadly, given the fact that for every one person with a job, there are probably 15 - 20 applying for it, I wouldn't be surprised if more and more people are doing shit like this just to make sure they have job security. It really is an employer's market and the employees continue to get fucked.
Click to expand...
Conversely, there are more jobs than people to fill the jobs in the software industry. Employees absolutely have leverage, especially now, at full employment.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Speaking of jobs -- I'm finding all these ads on GAF on how foreigners are stealing jobs really offensive, tbh :/

balladofwindfishes said:
But voting so far hasn't shown that to be true.
Click to expand...

Well, mattering does not imply it's the one and only driver of votes.

We can't observe the counterfactual world where one candidate has a different favorability rating with all else constant. How much larger would Clinton's margins be with higher favorability?

Does it only matter for the GE? If so, which slice of the population does it matter for?
 
R

Retromelon

Member
dramatis said:
The woman's efforts to support her husband are not acknowledged, but the power and influence of the husband casts suspicion on the accomplishments of the woman.

Trying to say, "That's just how you're seeing it" is not close to being an excuse for sexism, Retro.
Click to expand...
You know why I didn't acknowledge them? Because it's exhausting to constantly have to parse your statements to insert compliments to sweeten criticism. Hillary swooped down from the lofty perch of first lady and won a senate seat in a state she had little prior association with. She supported her husband in his duties, but she ultimately would not have her level of influence to be able to win in NY were it not for him. And if she had been president first and bill won the ny senate seat, I would say the same thing about him.
I feel you guys are tossing around the pejorative sexist a little too liberally.

Daniel b's posts are always so good, i love this dude
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
Macho Madness said:
You know Daniel B, maybe Bernie could redistribute you a clue.
Click to expand...

A direct attack from Macho Madness - I must have hit a nerve.

I'd far rather be discussing the favorable coverage Bernie got from CNN, on his position on Israel, and the fact that with Hillary, we'd actually be going backwards on the issue, as she is, by some margin, to the right of Obama, as she made abundantly clear in her AIPAC speech, which was in stark contrast to the speech Bernie would have given.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Kasich's favorability ratings among Republicans are not good! Hillary's favorability ratings with Democrats are really good! Spoilers: (mostly) Only Republicans can vote for Kasich right now and (mostly) only Democrats can vote for Bernie and Hillary right now.

Looking at general population favorability during primaries is, uhh, not a great idea.
 
O

Officerrob

Banned
Daniel B·;201200426 said:
For anyone else who's interested, Breitbart reported on it.

I didn't realise it was from January (I don't remember any of my comrades posting this ;) ), but I still think it qualifies as a Bill level "foot in mouth" comment, as it comes accross as a dig against Bernie's "extraordinary" grandchildren.
Click to expand...

Breitbart? Fucking Breitbart? Come on now, get that weak crap out of here. Bill and Hillary do and say enough dumb shit that you don't need to make things up. Besides, your shtick is getting really old
 
R

royalan

Member
Retromelon said:
You know why I didn't acknowledge them? Because it's exhausting to constantly have to parse your statements to insert compliments to sweeten criticism. Hillary swooped down from the lofty perch of first lady and won a senate seat in a state she had little prior association with. She supported her husband in his duties, but she ultimately would not have her level of influence to be able to win in NY were it not for him. And if she had been president first and bill won the ny senate seat, I would say the same thing about him.
I feel you guys are tossing around the pejorative sexist a little too liberally.
Click to expand...

The GOP has been attacking her since she was the First Lady, so that title came with almost as much baggage as it did perks. Would hardly call it "swooping in".

Also doesn't explain why a) she was voted in a second time; and b) why her time as senator is looked at favorably overall.
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
Officerrob said:
Breitbart? Fucking Breitbart? Come on now, get that weak crap out of here. Bill and Hillary do and say enough dumb shit that you don't need to make things up. Besides, your shtick is getting really old
Click to expand...

That's old news, We've moved onto Hillary rolling out the red carpet for Netanyahu.
 
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