-
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
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
And_Gignac
Member
"Release your supers and we'll release your Adam", the revolutionaries bbros said in a statement.
Jimmy King
Member
Is there a figure on how many independents missed out on changing their party affiliation? Or will we see a projection at some point?
That's going to be brutal on both sides of the isle.
There's only like 400k independents total in the state, with like 6 million dems. They all would have had to break Bernie to make a difference. Open primary, closed primary, it would have made no difference.
Officerrob
Banned
Adam would take one for the team
oh fuck
Increase in AA vote is surprising on its face. Is this because ny actually matters this cycle?
Trump might be in the 60s?? Geez.
shinra-bansho
Member
These are still early exits, so I'm guessing they'll change.
Under-30 vote is roughly the same, slightly down.
Very Liberal is up and Moderate is down.
Under-30 vote is roughly the same, slightly down.
Very Liberal is up and Moderate is down.
It's up across the board I believe. It looks like after 2008 and the Obama election the African-America community realized that they were strong enough to sway elections and could pick the candidate they wanted.
Most likely increase in proportion instead of outnumbering 2008.
We will know once we know the total turnout compared to 2008.
plagiarize
Banned
I'm liking those exit polls. There is blood in the water.
Disagree, it would have made a big difference. Hillary would likely still win an open primary, but that's several percentage points of swing in that independent vote
Aaron Strife
Banned
Kind of hoping for something really nuts like a 2-1 Hillary sweep
Been true this whole cycle.
Chezzymann
Member
Some people view Cruz as that too though
He'd have to pull the entire independent vote, which frankly wouldn't happen.
Black Mamba
Member
Technically, it could just represent a drop in non-AA voters.
AA vote totals could be roughly the same but if more white people stayed home, for example, than 2008, then their share goes up.
Abinash117
Member
A few things starts to make sense now actually. To me it seems like both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump seems to somewhat support the idea of "Jacksonian Democracy" somewhat or support the "common man". Bernie Sanders seems more concerned with classism and does not prioritize racism, but does think racism is an issue. Although, racism seems to be tied to class.
plagiarize
Banned
They understand the importance of voting in primaries. Unlike the youth who are proportionally down a bit and in raw votes way down this time around.
Indeed. The few, the proud, the we know we lost a long time ago but we still support him, the pro-Bernies on PoliGAF.
<facepalm>
Even the 538 podcast native NY residents joked about the NY board of elections striving to be the worst one in the country.
Do I want to go on twitter and find out what he did, or will I regret it?
It is pretty dumb. But, see earlier posts about NY Board of Elections.
Bingo. I know it's easy to be all "we are set to take control of SCOTUS, let's use it to do the shit we want carte blanche across the entire country"; but the more we empower SCOTUS to continue being a weapon, the harder the response will be when the GOP (and they will) ends up with the weapon in their control. I suspect everyone here would not be as pleased if the GOP won the presidency, and then promptly reversed Obergefell & Roe v Wade & the handful of major cases that they've decided in favor of liberals.
SCOTUS is currently the band-aid to our dysfunctional legislative process, and I don't think we will make progress on said dysfunction until we take away the easy out of SCOTUS ruling by fiat.
Macho Madness
Member
48% of Dem voters would like to generally continue Obama's policies
38% want more liberal policies
38% want more liberal policies
Jimmy King
Member
Much thanks. Not looking forward to the conspiracy theories now.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
They're *already* appointed by partisans though. Anyway, I did not think that your suggestion was that justices must act in a certain way, my point was that some alarm bells should be going off when we are talking about codifying an ideological balance/deadlock. When I used the word principles I was talking more generally in terms of what the Constitution represents, not that it explicitly bars such a proposal (though Art 2 Sec 2 would seem to run counter to your particular solutions, at least in spirit). The Supreme Court was never intended to be foremost an abstractly fair or unbiased body, it was intended to be a final and decisive adjudicator above all else.
The number of holes and inconsistencies with this kind of "solution" is immeasurable. Again, the stated motivation for this proposal is to prevent partisan actors from screwing up an intentional deadlock at the Supreme Court. That means you have to presume that partisan actors will work to circumvent the deadlock, so your solution has to be able to stop bad actors. But your solution is contingent on the non-existence of the very problem we're trying to solve.
Even putting aside the problem of why partisan actors would enact rules and policies that would prevent them from acting in a partisan fashion, how does this even prevent those actions in the first place? First, we have the problem that they're rules and not laws. So any future Senate majority can simply erase them. Second, we have the problem of how to define the relationship between parties and nominees. Who "owns" Kennedy's seat and how do we resolve a dispute over that ownership? Is the balance of the court determined by the ideology of the actual Justices or the ideology of the parties in the Senate? The latter does nothing to stop the Justices from being unbalanced, and the former doesn't resolve candidates whose ideologies are not easily classified.
Hell, what happens if the future makeup of the Senate is neither Democratic nor Republican because of the formation of new political parties? Do the few remaining Democratic and Republican Senators get to decide who can be considered for Supreme Court positions because they "own" them? How do we even handle the emergence of a new political party in terms of ideological balance? Do we have to expand or shrink the court and make each party have equal representation? How large does a party have to be in order to merit ownership of a Supreme Court seat? Does the Tea Party get a distinct seat separate from Republicans in general?
Next, you say "consider" instead of "confirm". So let's say Justice Thomas dies and Democrats control the Senate but Republicans control the Presidency. The Democrats could conform to these rule and "consider" a Republican nominee, then simply refuse to hold a vote, or to hold a vote and refuse to confirm. So we'd basically be in the situation we're already facing where the Senate does nothing and the balance of the Court changes on its own.
And what about the nominee themselves? Suppose the Republican president wishes to appoint a Justice who the majority of their party in the Senate does not support but whom a majority of Democrats would support. Are we now going to say that the Republican president should be prevented from nominating the candidate of their choice because the majority of the Senate minority opposes it? How do we reconcile such rules and complications with the President's explicit power to nominate in Article 2 Section 2? Such Senate rules would be a clear encroachment on said right even if they don't directly interfere with it.
One more example as I could keep going on and on. Say the minority party or the party who owns the vacant seat supports a nominee who otherwise disturbs the deadlocked balance, that is, the President puts forward a liberal/conservative justice that would put the court at 5-3. What mechanism do we have in place to prevent a stupid or naive party from unbalancing the court?
The fact that this proposal is only being discussed in the wake of Scalia's death is not imaginary. Knowing your historical viewpoints and posting patterns and the fact that you have never brought up such an idea in this community in all these years despite your focus on Supreme Court related subjects is not imaginary. That you give no serious analysis to the problems associated with actually enforcing such a solution is not imaginary (putting aside the issue of enacting it). I go back and forth on giving you the benefit of the doubt a lot of the time, but you burn those inclinations more often than not.
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
I'm still sticking with my 8-15 point range, it's 'low' due to many unknown factors floating around.
Poor Adam
As an aside, am I a terrible person if I think it makes sense if you have to register 30 days before an election to be able to vote in it? I like that same-day registration bumps up participation but at the same time I feel a 30 day buffer encourages people to be more politically motivated, aware and informed but isn't so obscene (like New York's buffer) which would be true if the buffer was larger. Is this speaking from a position of privilege? Is that too undemocratic?
As an aside, am I a terrible person if I think it makes sense if you have to register 30 days before an election to be able to vote in it? I like that same-day registration bumps up participation but at the same time I feel a 30 day buffer encourages people to be more politically motivated, aware and informed but isn't so obscene (like New York's buffer) which would be true if the buffer was larger. Is this speaking from a position of privilege? Is that too undemocratic?
It seems, from where I'm sitting, that health insurance companies are hastening their own demise by leaving the exchanges? The writing is on the wall for them, we should see a real universal health care system in the US in the next generation.
Dash_Riprock
Member
NY is gonna be a massacre for both parties isn't it?
Apparently he lifted entire paragraphs from 538 and other such sites for an article and didn't attribute them properly.
soul creator
Member
Poor Adam
As an aside, am I a terrible person if I think it makes sense if you have to register 30 days before an election to be able to vote in it? I like that same-day registration bumps up participation but at the same time I feel a 30 day buffer encourages people to be more politically motivated, aware and informed but isn't so obscene (like New York's buffer) which would be true if the buffer was larger. Is this speaking from a position of privilege? Is that too undemocratic?
I guess this depends on if your goal is getting "the correct people" voting, or getting every citizen voting.
plagiarize
Banned
I'm thinking a blow out because of how many factors favor Clinton here, but I wouldn't want to guess much higher than 15 either. 15 would be massive. She doesn't need to be higher than that for it to be a crushing blow to Sanders and the minority of his supporters who are hardcore crazy and still believe.
I have zero ill will towards the rest of the people pulling for him, but the 'he still has a great chance to beat that conservative crook Hillary' crowd deserve a slap in the face. 15 points is high enough to do that.
Anything double digits is good.
shinra-bansho
Member
So long as the rules aren't onerous, and these don't really seem to be, and don't systematically attempt to disenfranchise voting blocs, and this doesn't regardless of whatever dumb meme is floating around, then I don't see anything wrong with the rules.
I don't really have much sympathy if you're too busy being dank to register or change registration.
I don't really have much sympathy if you're too busy being dank to register or change registration.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Bernie Sanders is the first candidate in the three (counting this one) presidential races I have been eligible to vote for, who has inspired me to get out and vote. For the first time in my life, I now have a ticket to sit and complain about government without trying to hide the fact I have never voted.
Thank you Bernie Sanders, you're an inspiration to us all.
Btw, +1 for Hillary in Monroe County.
Thank you Bernie Sanders, you're an inspiration to us all.
Btw, +1 for Hillary in Monroe County.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Poor Adam
As an aside, am I a terrible person if I think it makes sense if you have to register 30 days before an election to be able to vote in it? I like that same-day registration bumps up participation but at the same time I feel a 30 day buffer encourages people to be more politically motivated, aware and informed but isn't so obscene (like New York's buffer) which would be true if the buffer was larger. Is this speaking from a position of privilege? Is that too undemocratic?
I agree that six months is pretty long and 2-1 month deadlines is fare more reasonable that makes sure
1) People who are interested in the party have a chance to get everything in order
2) If you want a closed primary only people from the party who are interested get to vote if you want that.
That being said, the idea that this was designed to disenfranchise people and bla bla bla is silly.
Also I hope Adam isn't perma, I enjoy his sas or what ever you call it and wish to see it continue in the general election
StopMakingSense
Member
I would have to go back and look, but I remember reading about how UH's entrance into the exchanges was pretty poorly planned, with plans that weren't competitively priced with others, so they couldn't hit the thresholds they needed for profitability.
Jimmy King
Member
what a swerve
Future Foundation
Member
It looks like he plagiarized an article from the Daily Beast. He started defending himself, saying he was using direct quotes, and somehow ended up blaming Chelsea Clinton for it.
EDIT: I dunno how everyone feels about Mediaite, but they've got the story.
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
I'm liking my 59-41 / 60-40 predictions from earlier.
That's the same prediction as the lord Tyler....can it be, could Tyler be here in the flesh!?
I'm liking my 59-41 / 60-40 predictions from earlier.
I'm sticking with a 15 point gap.
That said I had an odd conversation at a bar last night about the election with a bunch of people who turned out to be Hillary supporters, but weren't big on announcing it due to how their Sanders friend talks. Anecdotal I know, but it feeds into a few narratives out there.
That sounds like what I remember. They didn't plan properly so no one bought their really expensive plans.
blackaroni
Member
Damn lol
cartoon_soldier
Member
shinra-bansho
Member
Chelsea Clinton working those connections. Slay Crown Princess.
Macho Madness
Member
NY DEM EXIT POLL: 13% of voters would not vote for Clinton in general; 18% of voters would not vote for Sanders in general
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked