Support NeoGAF

[Maledict]

I can't wait to see a Trump/Hillary debate. He's gonna be on an Island.

Don't get your hopes up. It's going to be worse than Biden / Palin in 2008.

Expectations will be SO high for Hillary that unless she cures cancer on stage it will be seen as a failure. Similarly, if Trump manages the entire debate without calling her a **** and shitting his pants he'll have performed above the bar.

It feels like they need to take the Bartlet approach - they can't *ever* win by being congenial, they just need to school him policy wise across the room and accept she'll look arrogant to a certain group of people.

 

[Y2Kev]

Not that it's a whole lot better, but it seems like he was saying "women get it better" as in "women understand it better than men" rather than "women have it better than men." But he's still playing the "us poor men" card, so good luck with that.

That's how I read it too but it is because the other reading is unfathomably stupid.

 

[Clefargle]

GET HIM, BARNEY

Wow incredible, can't believe that Bernie is going this deep to try and split the Dems.

 

[Goodstyle]

Could "Punished Trump" be for real?

 

[BlastProcessing]

My best friend summed it up pretty well last night "Well... she wasn't that bad... I mean she's still Ann Coulter. But she wasn't that bad."

In my experience, if you want to make someone seem relatively more sane/reasonable, sit them down next to Bill Maher.

 

[Macho Madness]

Probably the most incredible footage this week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEmbwy7zDSg

 

[TheLaughingStock]

The bold is the real prize this election. We can extinguish Trump style politics right here and now if we get a big enough win. If we can show that Trump style politics leads to an electoral college massacre of legendary proportions we could potentially stop people from using it in the future. It's about showing that we're above our darkest hearts and that we're not a nation that finds this level of hate acceptable. The Clinton campaign needs to be looking to run up the numbers as high as possible because if they do this could potentially be a turning point for us.

Trump is not the first candidate to get blown out if that turns out to be the case. So what.

 

[Abinash117]

This is something my mom has actually been saying about Bernie for a while. Using her teacher speak, she has argued Bernie lacks any type of curiosity about anything. He's decided what is right/wrong/good/bad, and that's it. Period. He doesn't seem to be willing to listen. This is not an attack against him, because we're all prone to this from time to time. I think it's why his policy positions are not fleshed out. He *knows* that breaking up the banks is the right thing to do, so it doesn't matter why or how. He's right, damn it, and we're going to do it, so there.....because it's right. That's not a problem for a message candidate, but it is an issue for a serious contender.

I know a lot of people were making fun of Hillary's listening tours, but I genuinely think she has a spark of curiosity that Bernie simply doesn't have. She listened to the Mothers of the Movement. She went to coal country and listened, even when she was going to get shit for it. That's the type of thing I want from a leader. I want them to be willing to listen and engage, and not just stand on the mountain top screaming for everyone else to git good.

That may just be me, though.

I think that is also an issue with him, it makes him inflexible. I think it is the very reason he is losing the primary and won't get much from the Democratic convention. Because of his attitude it makes him go against the people he is suppose to represent. On fracking, some states' economy benefit from fracking, but I doubt he would compromise on it and instead focus on what he thinks it is right ignoring the concerns of rest of the party. I don't think he is very inclusive because of that. Both parties is a big tent and it looks like both Trump and Bernie aren't concerned about that, and because of that both of them will suffer and have suffered.

It also partially the reason he might not get what he wants during the convention. I expect some compromises and vague language like $12 federally, but push for big cities to be $15 or they look to ban fracking in states that show extensive harm in states that look to introduce it( which might mean that it wont get banned), or he won't get it whatsoever. Clinton and Bernie will most likely agree on most things and he and his supporters will most likely gloat when the Dems put a platform that he supports, even if Hillary already supported it from the get-go. Most or all his voting attempts will fail, but he might use minority reports to push a narrative which I think will fail too.

His temperament I think appeals to many young voters because he is a 'fighter' for something they are more concerned about and that's the reason they want him to win. But again, it does not look at the fact about how the Democrat demographic and circumstances are. Basically, it is a bunch of people who are independents that are almost always focused on economic policies that want to have a hostile takeover on the Democratic party without considering the issues of the actual Democratic voters. I really see that as ignorance, arrogance, and in some cases a form of paternal, benevolent racism, and affluent superiority. Despite being an independent myself I'm happy that Bernie and his supporters will mostly lose.

 

[HylianTom]

On what basis are these "areas" defined?

From what I can tell from his blog post, he's looking at city/county boundaries' changing over time..

In 1920, the combined population of area “A”, or the three Virginia counties furthest to the southwest (the counties of Lee, Scott and Wise–the independent city of Norton did not exist), was 96,569. The combined population of area “C”, or the Northern Virginia region (the city of Alexandria and the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William–the independent cities of Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas and Manassas Park did not exist), was 90,280.


As of the U.S. Census population estimates for 2015, the population of today’s area “C” (the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William, and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas and Manassas Park) is 2,447,654. Not only is this larger than the population of area “A” (which is 90,525), but it is larger than the populations of area “A” and all of area “B”, a region which covers a large geographic portion of Virginia and includes not only all of Southwest Virginia but most of the Shenandoah Valley area and much of Southside and Central Virginia. The combined population of this region is 2,438,611.

 

[B-Dubs]

Trump is not the first candidate to get blown out if that turns out to be the case. So what.

Remember what happened when Reagan blew out the Dems? They moved to the center. Right now the GOP is way too far to the right, they need to go back to the center and a shellacking at the hands of their most hated foe might just be enough of a shock to make that happen. Personally, I'd like two functioning parties instead of only one.

 

[Mintek]

Remember what happened when Reagan blew out the Dems? They moved to the center. Right now the GOP is way too far to the right, they need to go back to the center and a shellacking at the hands of their most hated foe might just be enough for that to happen. Personally, I'd like two functioning parties instead of only one.

Somebody is always going to cater to the racists while they are still a thing.

 

[Grief.exe]

Personally, I'd like two functioning parties instead of only one.

I agree completely.

I would much prefer two functioning parties than having to worry about the gold standard and increasing the military budget by 5 trillion every 4 years.

 

[B-Dubs]

Somebody is always going to cater to the racists while they are still a thing.

They're always going to be a thing, but if we can show that catering to them leads to electoral college doom that will go a long way to marginalizing them. That's about as good as we'll be able to do sadly.

I agree completely.

I would much prefer two functioning parties than having to worry about the gold standard and increasing the military budget by 5 trillion every 4 years.

Exactly. It's also the only way we'll get any of our goals accomplished. We can't afford to get a filibuster proof majority every time we need to get something done, we need the return of centrist republicans willing to cross the isle and work with the Dems. Without that we're stuck waiting for a blowout every four years to get something done.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think that is also an issue with him, it makes him inflexible. I think it is the very reason he is losing the primary and won't get much from the Democratic convention. Because of his attitude it makes him go against the people he is suppose to represent. On fracking, some states' economy benefit from fracking, but I doubt he would compromise on it and instead focus on what he thinks it is right ignoring the concerns of rest of the party. I don't think he is very inclusive because of that. Both parties is a big tent and it looks like both Trump and Bernie aren't concerned about that, and because of that both of them will suffer and have suffered.

It also partially the reason he might not get what he wants during the convention. I expect some compromises and vague language like $12 federally, but push for big cities to be $15 or they look to ban fracking in states that show extensive harm in states that look to introduce it( which might mean that it wont get banned), or he won't get it whatsoever. Clinton and Bernie will most likely agree on most things and he and his supporters will most likely gloat when the Dems put a platform that he supports, even if Hillary already supported it from the get-go. Most or all his voting attempts will fail, but he might use minority reports to push a narrative which I think will fail too.

His temperament I think appeals to many young voters because he is a 'fighter' for something they are more concerned about and that's the reason they want him to won. But again, it does not look at the fact about how the Democrats demographic and circumstances are. Basically, it is a bunch of people who are independents that are almost always focused on economic policies that want have a hostile takeover on the Democratic party without considering the issues of the actual Democratic voters. I really see that as ignorance, arrogance, and in some cases a form of paternal, benevolent racism, and affluent superiority. Despite being an independent myself I'm happy that Bernie and his supporters will mostly lose.

My biggest thing is how almost disrespectful Bernie supporters are towards people who've been fighting for these causes for years. Healthcare reform is my biggest issue in politics by far. ACA is not the end of that fight but it was a meaningful step forward and we need to build on that. I explained that to a friend of mine who is very much in the "If Bernie doesn't win I'll write his name in because I don't trust Hillary," that PPACA is worth protecting and if Hillary is willing to do that she's got my vote, and that she has a strong history of supporting UHC. Not good enough, because Bernie wants single-payer. I ask him how he can get that accomplished with an unwilling Congress. His answer - "That's the revolution, bro."

It just pisses all over the work people have done to make even the smallest accomplishments. Obama, the Clintons, Nixon, Teddy fucking Roosevelt worked for years to get healthcare reform and even pulling off ACA was a miracle. Oh, but it's okay, a bunch of college kids are going to actually vote and then we'll magically get it done.

Fuck the revolution. It's made up of smarmy douchebags who didn't care about politics until some asshole crawled out from his hole in Vermont, who has no significant legislative achievements to his name to yell at the clouds and tell everyone else they all suck.

 

[Abinash117]

I honestly don't get why some candidates are so focused on getting one part of the demographics to vote for them and forgoing others mostly. These politicians should know it is a losing strategy. Even the RNC chairman knew that, but some officials and the voters obviously did not care about that. Even before Trump , it did not look like the party had the balls to actually expand seriously until the last minute. Funnily enough, Rand Paul tried to expand the party to other demographics and Hillary knows that she needs to do that to help her win.

 

[Macho Madness]

I honestly don't get why some candidates are so focused on getting one part of the demographics to vote for them and forgoing others mostly. These politicians should know it is a losing strategy. Even the RNC chairman knew that, but some officials and the voters obviously did not care about that. Even before Trump , it did not look like the party had the balls to actually expand seriously until the last minute. Funnily enough, Rand Paul tried to expand the party to other demographics and Hillary knows that she needs to do that to help her win.

Why the southern strategy was a bad idea #66377337

 

[User 85168]

Why the southern strategy was a bad idea #66377337

Was it though? I mean obviously morally and ideologically it's wrong to me, but it did put them in power for multiple presidencies and made many states deep red for decades to come.

 

[Brinbe]

It definitely worked for decades and we're just now seeing the rotten effects of that strategy. But they probably weren't thinking 50 years ahead when they made that decision to cater to racists. A lot of those Beltway vets are still stuck in the 80s/90s, hence why the term Reagan Democrat is even still used today even though it has no relation to the current demography.

 

[Macho Madness]

Was it though? I mean obviously morally and ideologically it's wrong to me, but it did put them in power for multiple presidencies and made many states deep red for decades to come.

That doesn't mean it was ever a good idea.. That was my point.

 

[Crocodile]

Look up first past the post by ccp grey on YouTube. There may temporally be more than 2 parties but it will be short lived.

Just in case anyone was lazy, here is the video on First Past The Post/Two-Party system Suikoguy is talking about!

 

[Suikoguy]

Just in case anyone was lazy, here is the video on First Past The Post/Two-Party system Suikoguy is talking about!

Thanks, at dinner. Its a great video on the concept.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Remember what happened when Reagan blew out the Dems? They moved to the center. Right now the GOP is way too far to the right, they need to go back to the center and a shellacking at the hands of their most hated foe might just be enough of a shock to make that happen. Personally, I'd like two functioning parties instead of only one.

I do. Reagan won over 90% of the electoral votes 2x. Hillary won't sniff 90% and it didn't keep out of power the kinds of people and style of politics Republicans don't like for nearly 40 years. Most isolationists, racists, bigots, people who want to put America 1st, folks that love tough talk, and so on aren't going anywhere.

 

[User 463088]

I do. Reagan won over 90% of the electoral votes 2x. Hillary won't sniff 90% and it didn't keep out of power the kinds of people and style of politics Republicans don't like for nearly 40 years. Most isolationists, racists, bigots, people who want to put America 1st, folks that love tough talk, and so on aren't going anywhere.

Of course they won't disappear tomorrow. The ultra left that gave us Dukkakis and Mondale didn't fall of the earth when Clinton was elected. That's not the end goal. Our goal is to bitch slap the far, far right hard enough that the GOP is forced, out of self interest if nothing else, to moderate their views. The GOP will never be a liberal party, but they can be forced to not be so bat shit insane on some issues. Because we live in a two party system, the far right will either vote for the more moderate GOP, not vote at all, or fracture off. It's a win for Democrats no matter what. I would prefer them to reform because we need a functional political system... Even if I don't agree with the people on the other side. The crap we've been dealing with from the extremists on the right must be checked somehow.

Having said that, I think this is an argument for 2020. Trump will not be their come to Jesus moment.

 

[jack_package_200]

In Q1 2016, Bernie Sanders missed 97% of Senate votes. He is the largest "vote misser" Presidential candidate of any candidate at this point before the election in 2008, 2012, or 2014.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

I guess having to do your job is too bourgeois for Bernie.

 

[gutter_trash]

Just in case anyone was lazy, here is the video on First Past The Post/Two-Party system Suikoguy is talking about!

Welcome to Canada LOL

 

[Wilsongt]

In Q1 2016, Bernie Sanders missed 97% of Senate votes. He is the largest "vote misser" Presidential candidate of any candidate at this point before the election in 2008, 2012, or 2014.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

I guess having to do your job is too bourgeois for Bernie.

Even more than Marco? Damn.

 

[User 463088]

Holy shit. Trump doesn't have a joint fundraising agreement in place with the RNC. They are so screwed.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-hillary-clinton-general-election-fundraising

 

[ctothej]

How do you guys think 538 will change the Polls Plus model for future elections? It's been totally unreliable this primary, even on the Dem side. Endorsements just don't have the weight they used to when everyone's getting their news from social media.

 

[User 463088]

How do you guys think 538 will change the Polls Plus model for future elections? It's been totally unreliable this primary, even on the Dem side. Endorsements just don't have the weight they used to when everyone's getting their news from social media.

I think they should shift to a poll plus demographics model a la Benchmark Politics.

 

[Retromelon]

Dukakis and mondale are ultra left now? Compared to reagan, maybe, but the sense I always had of them were 50s esque establishment liberals that were being outclassed at the outset of a new paradigm in politics: the micromanaged presidential campaign, where noncontroversiality and "gravitas" is prioritized over all, to the detriment of honesty and personality

 

[Suikoguy]

I think they should shift to a poll plus demographics model a la Benchmark Politics.

Yeah, the other variable that really seemed to matter was the independent vote in open primaries. Benchmark has done pretty well this primary, while Nate was busy being a Pundit.
Makes me wonder how they will do in the GE, as primaries are harder to predict.

 

[Y2Kev]

.

 

[Macho Madness]

.

A mess.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Holy shit. Trump doesn't have a joint fundraising agreement in place with the RNC. They are so screwed.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-hillary-clinton-general-election-fundraising

You know he's a billionaire, right?

 

[User1608]

Damn, I underestimated how much my boss and friend hates Trump. He is still disappointed Kasich didn't win.

"This is the best we can do? Ridiculous."

We talked about politics and I am so careful when I discuss them with him, hah. I got the impression he knows his party is screwed for quite a while. He's a genuine small government and taxes type but hates the bigotry that has made itself very obvious and apparent.

 

[Makai]

Why even add extra variables? Polls are a direct measure.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Last 538 podcast was interesting.

They brought up the tricky discussion about how important it is for a party to have a reasonable line of succession. While both parties have struggled with this (in regards to Democrats, referring to politicians beyond Clinton, obviously), it's clearly the Republicans who had actually no clue who was "supposed" to be next - and it caused them serious issues. You certainly don't want to coronate someone, but it's important to at least have a strategy in place with a plan B and C as well.

I thought it was a good conversation, especially as a contrast to the Berniecrats arguing that every single election we should start from scratch and only do populists candidates. It's weird "heir apparent" has become a dirty word in politics, despite people recognizing it's very important in most aspects of life (i.e., training a new CEO instead of just throwing them into the fire)

 

[Manmademan]

Last 538 podcast was interesting.

They brought up the tricky discussion about how important it is for a party to have a reasonable line of succession. While both parties have struggled with this (in regards to Democrats, referring to politicians beyond Clinton, obviously), it's clearly the Republicans who had actually no clue who was "supposed" to be next - and it caused them serious issues. You certainly don't want to coronate someone, but it's important to at least have a strategy in place with a plan B and C as well.

I thought it was a good conversation, especially ad a contrast to the Berniecrats arguing that every single election we should start from scratch and only do populists candidates. It's weird "heir apparent" has become a dirty word in politics, despite people recognizing it's very important in most aspects of life (i.e., training a new CEO instead of just throwing them into the fire)

Total BS. Bush was set up to be "next in line" for some time now. They were desperately trying to get him to run in 2012 but he shot them down to make bank in the private sector first.

The entire establishment threw as much money as humanly possible behind Jeb! From the jump, and a lot of ink was spilled discussing his unprecedented 100 million warchest or whatever before the campaign even started!

They DIDNT count on Jeb! Being an inept politician and getting obliterated by Trump on stage because generally republicans don't attack each other like that. Hell, no one does anywhere in ANY party! Trump changed the game and Bush was too stupid to know when and how to back off.

Once Bush was rendered not viable THEN the party had no idea what to do with itself and the field was chaos. None of the others were serious candidates.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Total BS. Bush was set up to be "next in line" for some time now. They were desperately trying to get him to run in 2012 but he shot them down to make bank in the private sector first.

The entire establishment threw as much money as humanly possible behind Jeb! From the jump, and a lot of ink was spilled discussing his unprecedented 100 million warchest or whatever before the campaign even started!

They DIDNT count on Jeb! Being an inept politician and getting obliterated by Trump on stage because generally republicans don't attack each other like that. Hell, no one does anywhere in ANY party! Trump changed the game and Bush was too stupid to know when and how to back off.

Once Bush was rendered not viable THEN the party had no idea what to do with itself and the field was chaos. None of the others were serious candidates.

Rubio was obviously the back up, too bad be mom spegattied himself

 

[Beer Monkey]

Is there a running tally somewhere of what delegate count each candidate would have in terms of superdelegate votes if they broke by popular vote in each state?

Asking for a friend. Well, to annoy a friend.

 

[Manmademan]

Rubio was obviously the back up, too bad be mom spegattied himself

I don't think he was. Rubio had no real strategy, fundraising, or ground game in place and pretty much had to be forced to campaign once it was clear it wasn't going to be bush.

He wasn't a serious candidate any more than Kaisch or Christie was. He was there to get his name out for a future run, possibly governor.

The only dude PREPARED for a run from the jump was Cruz, but he had burned so many bridges and was so toxic the party was never going to back him.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

Rubio was obviously the back up, too bad be mom spegattied himself

I can't stop laughing at this, God dammit.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Trump, ‘Blindsided’ by Ryan, Questions Need for Unified Party

“Does it have to be unified? I’m very different than everybody else, perhaps, that’s ever run for office. I actually don’t think so,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos in an interview that will air in full Sunday on ABC News’ “This Week.”

On Clinton:

“She’s married to a man who was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics,” Trump said. “Hillary was an enabler and she treated these women horribly.”

That's one angle he'll keep attacking Hillary on to repeat his stance than women don't like her.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Total BS. Bush was set up to be "next in line" for some time now. They were desperately trying to get him to run in 2012 but he shot them down to make bank in the private sector first.

The entire establishment threw as much money as humanly possible behind Jeb! From the jump, and a lot of ink was spilled discussing his unprecedented 100 million warchest or whatever before the campaign even started!

They DIDNT count on Jeb! Being an inept politician and getting obliterated by Trump on stage because generally republicans don't attack each other like that. Hell, no one does anywhere in ANY party! Trump changed the game and Bush was too stupid to know when and how to back off.

Once Bush was rendered not viable THEN the party had no idea what to do with itself and the field was chaos. None of the others were serious candidates.

That's a fair counter-point. They did actually have a plan - it just wasn't a good one, and they didn't have a plan B or C.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Hillary was an enabler and she treated these women horribly.

Yeesh

This pivot to the center is going pretty well, I think

 

[johnsmith]

The GOP is not going to correct in 2020. Trump has made sure of that. If Cruz had won, yeah maybe. But in 2020 they're all going to say what they say every election, "we'd have won with a true conservative" which Trump obviously isn't.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Trump, ‘Blindsided’ by Ryan, Questions Need for Unified Party



On Clinton:


That's one angle he'll keep attacking Hillary on to repeat his stance than women don't like her.

For some reason pivot in the morning smells a lot like Napalm.

 

[kess]

Geert Wilders is going to be at the GOP convention and P.J. O'Rourke begrudgingly endorsed Clinton

What is this I don't even anymore

 

[A Black Falcon]

GET HIM, BARNEY

On that note, Barney Frank spoke for Hillary today at the Maine Democratic Convention, which I was at yesterday and today. (Remember, 2/3rds Bernie victory state, while I was a Hillary delegate.) It was a solid speech; I'd have liked a somewhat different tone, more about her strengths, but when talking to that audience, a speech with a big focus on 'why to vote for her even if she is not perfectly ideologically pure' was probably right. He had some amusing lines too.


However, as one might expect, some Bernie fans being the angry people they are, he had a whole bunch of hecklers yelling at him with various attacks repeatedly throughout much of the speech. I've never seen anything like it, it was just awful... he responded to some hecklers, for better or worse, but seriously someone in charge should have done something to get those people to stop. And these are Democrats!

And later, while it wasn't as bad, there were a few hecklers yelling at Chellie Pingree, who gave the last speech, for her to 'change her vote' since she's a superdelegate for Hillary and some people just cannot handle the idea of a progressive not supporting Bernie...

So yeah, Bernie fans. Not all of them it must be said, many were not happy with the protesters, but some are not able to behave decently. Even if you disagree with someone, yelling over them and trying to not allow them to speak is not going to get your point across!

Other than that, though, it was a pretty good day. Pingree's speech was maybe the best, and Janet Mills' Friday night.

 

[B-Dubs]

Yeesh

This pivot to the center is going pretty well, I think

That is the most graceful pivot I have ever seen. Prima ballerinas can't pivot that well.