• 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.

Holmes

Member
PPP

Maryland

Clinton 58
Sanders 33

Trump 43
Kasich 29
Cruz 24
Cruz might come in 3rd in the next six primaries.

tumblr_inline_o4kvcvKqj81tb0ry4_500.gif
 
its really, really funny seeing young white college kids cry about being disenfranchised because they didn't bother to register properly vs. actual voter suppression of poor (black) people who can't vote because they lack all the proper identification. Images go back to a voting booth that was bottlenecked so bad that it was basically only two people voting at a time.
 

teiresias

Member
So the fact that the hearing can be held later, I take it this will be the new refrain for going all the way to the convention. No doubt they'll try to get the hearing before then.
 

Slacker

Member
Going over Bernie reddit

it's really sad, place is r/conspiracy at this point

I'm looking forward to Bernie dropping out so Reddit can go back to being somewhat less of a cesspool. Just checked the first 30 posts in r/politics (not r/s4p mind you)

11 anti-Clinton links
9 voter fraud/NY process complaints
6 pro-Bernie stories
4 stories about something else
 
I'm looking forward to Bernie dropping out so Reddit can go back to being somewhat less of a cesspool. Just checked the first 30 posts in r/politics (not r/s4p mind you)

11 anti-Clinton links
9 voter fraud/NY process complaints
6 pro-Bernie stories
4 stories about something else

Trump would just get even more popular. If he drops out I wouldn't be surprised if /r/thedonald gets a huge boost. Its already at 100,000 subs.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn 3m3 minutes ago Washington, DC
@Rtalkiman also a good candidate

In reply to Harry Enten
Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn 3m3 minutes ago Washington, DC
@ForecasterEnten yeah, same with NJ(Delaware too)

In reply to John Riley
Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn 4m4 minutes ago Washington, DC
@johnnyriles also a candidate. so is new jersey. all could be around 60

Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn 5m5 minutes ago Washington, DC
Maryland is a good candidate to be Clinton's best remaining state: rich white voters + black voters + closed primary

.
 
There's this fascinating trend in /r/S4P where you see the front page full of threads with very similar topics ("voter suppression", "fraud", "machines are not working" and etc) during primaries Bernie is expected to lose. You don't see a single one of these type of threads in primaries Bernie is expected to win.
 
I'm looking forward to Bernie dropping out so Reddit can go back to being somewhat less of a cesspool. Just checked the first 30 posts in r/politics (not r/s4p mind you)

11 anti-Clinton links
9 voter fraud/NY process complaints
6 pro-Bernie stories
4 stories about something else

4 stories about something else? Bullshit. :p
 
There's this fascinating trend in /r/S4P where you see the front page full of threads with very similar topics ("voter suppression", "fraud", "machines are not working" and etc) during primaries Bernie is expected to lose. You don't see a single one of these type of threads in primaries Bernie is expected to win.

Yeah. That's why I've always appreciated you Melkr. You're pro-Bernie but you don't buy into all this whacky conspiracy garbage.
 
There's this fascinating trend in /r/S4P where you see the front page full of threads with very similar topics ("voter suppression", "fraud", "machines are not working" and etc) during primaries Bernie is expected to lose. You don't see a single one of these type of threads in primaries Bernie is expected to win.

From what I understand Utah was an even bigger mess than Arizona in regards to the backlog and voting locations being backed up, people turned away, etc. But nobody talked about it.

It's sad because there is a legitimate problem of GOP states making it hard to vote. All this energy could be actually used positively if it wasn't reduced to a clintonian conspiracy.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
omg fuck you Democrats for fucking this up

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...leads-heading-into-next-weeks-primary-el.html

Larry Hogan continues to be an extremely popular Governor. 55% of voters approve of the job he's doing to 23% who disapprove. In addition to being pretty universally popular with Republicans (85/6 approval) he's also on positive ground with independents (49/20) and even Democrats (42/33). He would lead hypothetical match ups for reelection by double digits- 50/36 over Martin O'Malley, 48/29 over John Delaney, and 48/24 over Tom Perez. That's partially a function of name recognition- only 29% of voters are familiar with Delaney and 23% with Perez (O'Malley remains unpopular with a 36/49 favorability rating) but it still speaks to the fact that Hogan will be a tough out for Democrats next time around.
 

johnsmith

remember me
Apparently Fox Business is a politics channel now. It's been on in our break room for weeks now and it's literally always political discussion.
 
its really, really funny seeing young white college kids cry about being disenfranchised because they didn't bother to register properly vs. actual voter suppression of poor (black) people who can't vote because they lack all the proper identification. Images go back to a voting booth that was bottlenecked so bad that it was basically only two people voting at a time.

Absolutely different situations I agree but both are important to address. Voters should not be given stupid registry messes in order to exercise their rights. Is stupid and the Democratic Party specially should be ashamed of such practices.

It is irrelevant if people think voters should be informed about every deadline and whatever. They don't have to, if they want to vote they should be allowed to do so with the less interference and bureaucracy possible.


Yeah. That's why I've always appreciated you Melkr. You're pro-Bernie but you don't buy into all this whacky conspiracy garbage.

Melkr is great. I think he's my favourite Bernie supporter.

<3

Look at us being all cordial and shit. Twitter should take several lessons at Poli(te)-GAF.
 
Do they? What percentage of issues?



He's already pointed to the unusual order in Zubik. Justice Kagan claims that the justices are "working really hard" to avoid deadlocks--an unnecessary effort when one side has the upper hand. And we've seen for decades now how partisan the confirmation process has become, all because Republicans and Democrats are fighting over which side gets the upper hand. For instance, until Justice Alito's confirmation, the two justices who were confirmed with the most No votes were Justice Thomas (48 No) and Chief Justice Rehnquist (33). Justices Alito (42) and Kagan (37) both received more No votes than Rehnquist, and Justice Sotomayor received only two less than him (31).

Segall's suggestion is a way to cut back on the partisan bickering over confirmations and encourage the Court to continue doing what Kagan says they're doing now--"working really hard" to find a consensus.

I agree with the principle you and Segall are setting forth. If I could go back in time and change it to 8 seats, I would.

However, after twenty+ years of conservative fuckery that has reshaped the country with partisan decisions, no liberal politician would ever agree to this. Nor should they. Was anyone calling for conservatives to "settle" for a 4-4 court when Rhenquist left? I don't fucking think so. Liberals are always expected to bend over and I'm tired of it.

It is simply a nonstarter proposal.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
I am kind of shocked that you are suggesting such a condition. Putting aside the problems associated with constitutional principles that mandating partisanship from Justices would raise, the idea that such a solution could actually be implemented with any degree of success seems ridiculous. How on earth would you even write such a condition in terms of specifics and particulars that doesn't just leave it to the eye of the beholder? It would inevitably become outdated as new questions create new divisions along ideological lines.

More importantly, how would you even successfully enforce it in such a way that would prevent partisan actors from stacking the court?

I'm not sure what kind of constitutional issues such a requirement would raise. But to be clear, the suggestion is not that the justices behave as partisans, but that they be appointed by partisans. And here's a simple suggestion for how the rule could be implemented: the Senate changes its rules such that they won't consider a Supreme Court nominee who isn't supported by a majority of Senators of the party that "controls" the seat to which the nominee is nominated. Alternatively, the rules could provide that the Senate won't consider the nomination of a Supreme Court justice who is not one of a handful of potential nominees chosen by majorities of the appropriate party.

This is one of the most nakedly reactionary stances I've seen you take in a long time. I cannot even fathom a scenario in prior years in which someone else could have floated this idea and you would have done anything other than savage it.

Well, I suppose that's the trouble with debating imaginary versions of real people.

I agree with the principle you and Segall are setting forth. If I could go back in time and change it to 8 seats, I would.

However, after twenty+ years of conservative fuckery that has reshaped the country with partisan decisions, no liberal politician would ever agree to this. Nor should they. Was anyone calling for conservatives to "settle" for a 4-4 court when Rhenquist left? I don't fucking think so. Liberals are always expected to bend over and I'm tired of it.

It is simply a nonstarter proposal.

It would take people who can see beyond their own partisan advantage, sure. For instance, here, you admit that the principle is a good one, but your course would prevent it from ever being implemented. You want liberal justices to make partisan decisions to undo the conservative decisions you decry, but then at the end of that, you'll have conservatives wanting conservative justices to undo the liberal decisions they decry (and you support). Of course, we're already in that situation--the appointment of more conservative justices is the result of conservatives in the '80s onward demanding justices who would overturn--or at the very least, not extend--the liberal jurisprudence of the preceding 40+ years. By adopting Segall's proposal, conservatives would be giving up on their ongoing efforts just as liberals would be giving up on their incipient efforts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom