• 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 |OT6| Delete your accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FloydtheFathead

Member
So... I guess I missed a big day today.
Clinton/Warren vs Trump/Gingrich (God willing)

What the hell would the margins be for woman with that type of match-up?
 
E

Ecotic

Member
It's a change that Warren wants to be VP. My friend who worked for the Center for American Progress at the time said they had to work hard for months to persuade her to run. She was persuaded only by the argument that she would have a huge megaphone for her causes. I guess Warren has now realized a bigger megaphone is her best avenue to get change.
 
A

ampere

Member
Just watching the speech from Joe.

Wow. He goes for Trump's throat in a very calm and collected way. That really would be an impeachable offense if Trump tries to threaten and bully judges as president.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
olympia said:
what do you guys say to people who relentlessly bring up the fucking emails
Click to expand...

Hillary broke policy but the FBI will show she did nothing criminal.
The government policy at the time and I think still is, amazingly outdated. She was expected to print out emails as they are both sent and received and store them in boxes. From the maddow segment, they still don't have journaling installed on the .gov servers. Above all, email is not the channel they use for sharing confidential information, and thusly there has been no evidence Hillary herself sent classified information.

They are not supposed to send classified information over .gov emails either.

Edit:
The only thing that bothers me a bit about it, they were not able to recover deleted emails from one of her aides.
 
T

teiresias

Member
Only 3k people at the Bernie rally in DC? Mess.

That lsat question about whether Warren thought she would be ready to be President if she were VP and had to become President. Just a point blank, yes. Awesome!
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
olympia said:
what do you guys say to people who relentlessly bring up the fucking emails
Click to expand...

If you write a bunch of random words on a piece of paper and send it to the FBI they'll redact and classify some of it

post-classification being a thing is way too powerful to let people use it to arrest/try someone for anything. Also people don't know what the purpose of classification is.
 
C

cogent

Banned
teiresias said:
Only 3k people at the Bernie rally in DC? Mess.

That lsat question about whether Warren thought she would be ready to be President if she were VP and had to become President. Just a point blank, yes. Awesome!
Click to expand...

I bet under half of them were actually from DC.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So now that Bernie and Hillary have kissed and made up, can we all go back to being friends
(with benefits?)
Poligaf?
 
U

User 463088

Banned
thezerofire said:
very surprising that there are no threads on r/s4p about warren's or biden's endorsement
Click to expand...

lalala.gif


Kidding. There was earlier but they didn't stay on the main page for long.

Can anyone who only gets Bernie emails confirm what people on /s4p are saying? A bunch are saying they got emails from Hillary/DNC. I'm wondering if he has handed over his lists?
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
VendettaRed07 said:
But he's like 76 now though isn't he? Would he really want to serve again?

We should run Joe Kennedy if we want the automatic W
Click to expand...

Yeah.. he's a bit old. Not as old as when New Jersey Dems pulled a Lautenberg back in 2002, but up there.

Kennedy would be fantastic, too. I'm starting to understand why Reid softened his "hell no" stance on this particular case; there are options for MA Dems.

adam387 said:
Is the person who wins the special election allowed to run for a full term after?
Click to expand...

Unless they've changed the law in MA, I think the special would be for a full term. But I could be wrong; MA Dems, often controlling the legislature by wide margins, ha've been known to change election laws at the drop of a hat to suit their particular situation.
 
T

thcsquad

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
But he's like 76 now though isn't he? Would he really want to serve again?

We should run Joe Kennedy if we want the automatic W
Click to expand...

Barney Frank might still have a couple of good Senate terms left in him, to keep the seat warm for Kennedy the Younger.

But as I said about a week ago, there are many good options in Massachusetts: Deval Patrick, Mike Capuano, Niki Tsongas, Jim Mcgovern.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
Man, when was the last time the Dems have been this aggressive on the trail. All these years of the GOP seemingly the more aggressive party and now Bams is leading the Calvary charge for Gen. Clinton. Brings a tear to my eye.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
HylianTom said:
Yeah.. he's a bit old. Not as old as when New Jersey Dems pulled a Lautenberg back in 2002, but up there.

Kennedy would be fantastic, too. I'm starting to understand why Reid softened his "hell no" stance on this particular case; there are options for MA Dems.
Click to expand...

Kennedy wouldn't even need to fund raise or spend anything. His name on the ticket makes him unbeatable by default.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
What if Warren resigns her Senate seat as soon as she's named the Veep selection? They have to have the special in 120 days, right? I mean, it's definitely risky in case Queen doesn't win.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
adam387 said:
What if Warren resigns her Senate seat as soon as she's named the Veep selection? They have to have the special in 120 days, right? I mean, it's definitely risky in case Queen doesn't win.
Click to expand...

I remember reading somewhere that she can time her resignation/exit (after Election Day - so no risk involved) to minimize how long the GOP governor's replacement would sit there until the special election.

Found it!
Harry Reid working on plan for Dems to keep Senate seat if Elizabeth Warren is VP: sources

State law requires that when a Senate or House member gives up their seat, a special election must be held within 145 to 160 days of their departure, during which time Gov. Charlie Baker (R) is allowed to appoint an interim successor. However, that report allegedly found that they can set their own resignation date in a letter filed to state officials.

“In theory, Warren could file such a letter 145 days before the Jan. 20, 2017 inauguration and successfully block Baker from picking any temporary replacement,” the Globe stated. “But that would expose Warren to a potentially awkward position. If Clinton lost the November election and Warren wanted to keep her Senate seat, she would have to make the politically difficult decision of rescinding her planned resignation — or run for an open seat that she created.”
Click to expand...
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
adam387 said:
What if Warren resigns her Senate seat as soon as she's named the Veep selection? They have to have the special in 120 days, right? I mean, it's definitely risky in case Queen doesn't win.
Click to expand...

I think a Massachusetts special senate elections will be near the least of our concerns if Trump wins

might as well go all in
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Crocodile said:
A) I think there's an argument to be made that Clinton's coalition is smaller because she got less votes this time around than the 2008 primary but it you look at states she won and how the demographics voted for her it pretty much maps the Obama coalition to a tee save for young people (though it was way worse with young white people). I obviously can't tell you how much of it is enthusiasm for her vs fear of the enemy (the high unfavorables don't help the conversation) but I suspect you cant' tell me either so we'd just be arguing in circles?

B) Watching what went down with the Obama presidency (the GOP obstruction, the failure of the Obama coalition to show up in midterms, etc.) was part of why I viewed what Sanders wanted to do with such skepticism. I feel Obama was failed more than he failed us. Obama BLED and expended a shit-ton of political capital to get the ACA through and I'm supposed to believe Sanders, with a fraction of the capital or charisma of Obama and as someone who seems adverse to compromise, is going to force single payer through? And get young kids to march on Congress to get laws passed? That's some unicorn bullshit. Clinton will of course be limited in what she can do depending on how the congressional races play out in the fall but I think I'll be able to tell the difference between "she actually tried but she couldn't get it done" and "she barely tried". Maybe I'm being too optimistic. That being said, nothing about Sanders' record, how he ran his campaign, etc. made me think he would be any better at trying to push legislation through. In fact they led me to believe he would be worse at it.

C) I too share you're fear about the Left becoming radicalized and I have no idea where the end game is going in that regard. I never set foot in those OT threads you mentioned but those are concerning comments you've relayed. A Green Tea Party is the last thing we need and I'm not entirely sure Sanders has been a good thing in this specific regard. That is to say I'm worried he may have encouraged it even if he didn't mean to. I'm still pissed about how that Nevada nonsense went down. I guess it will depend on how most of supporters use their political energy in the coming months/years.
Click to expand...

A) Probably would be arguing in circles - but right now I think Clinton has a higher percentage of the national vote than her national favorability - which makes me think there's a fairly strong NeverTrump aspect in there.

B) I think Sanders' idea was genuinely to spark a revolution that would actually (theoretically) also come out and vote during the mid-terms (we can all stop laughing now). Considering the rather personal hatred the GOP has for Clinton, I kinda think Clinton may get hosed even harder by the GOP than Obama

IMO, at some point people are going to realize that the GOP's intransigence has little to do with racism and sexism, and much more to do with the high political effectiveness it carries in House and Senate races. I think people forget this strategy was started during the Bill Clinton years, not the Obama years. The GOP does it because they did it and got the House and the Senate right after. Until voters punish the GOP for doing it, they're gonna keep doing it. And you bet your ass the Dems will to when put in the same position.

C) I have a whole soapbox for this, but a lot of the online discourse I see has far more to do with revenge, self-righteousness, hypocrisy, personal gain, and virtue signaling far more than Social Justice.

NeoXChaos said:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/obama-hillary-clinton-endorsement-224153#ixzz4B8EsRulW
Click to expand...

I can confirm the job offers going out to old Obama data folks.

Tubie said:
I can't believe Politico has actually been good recently.
Click to expand...

Their end of campaign stories are good; but I suspect it also has a lot to do with writing Pro-Clinton / Anti-Bernie stories now that the primary is over and people taking better to those kinds of stories. :p

Ecotic said:
It's a change that Warren wants to be VP. My friend who worked for the Center for American Progress at the time said they had to work hard for months to persuade her to run. She was persuaded only by the argument that she would have a huge megaphone for her causes. I guess Warren has now realized a bigger megaphone is her best avenue to get change.
Click to expand...

Honestly - I suspect Obama / Sanders / Biden all harangued the heck out of her to do it. Zero chance that Sanders functionally drops out, everyone endorses, and Warren all of a sudden is campaigning for VP all in the same damn day happens coincidentally.

Obama told Sanders that Warren was throwing her hat in for VP, 100%, and that Clinton was going to choose her assuming the vetting comes back clean.
 
P

Plumbob

Member
Hillary probably won't be indicted.

But if she were:

Warren is the VP candidate. They continue to campaign on the promise that if Hillary is found guilty, she resigns and Warren becomes President.

No one else would step in as effectively as she would.
 
D

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Plumbob said:
Hillary probably won't be indicted.

But if she were:

Warren is the VP candidate. They continue to campaign on the promise that if Hillary is found guilty, she resigns and Warren becomes President.

No one else would step in as effectively as she would.
Click to expand...

Hillary gets indicted, I think Joe gets brought in.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
The "Left" isn't organized in the same way that the tea party was, and many of these people don't think about congressional elections. I wouldn't worry about a left tea party. Although, you will see some form of resentment on the internet a lot for awhile.
 
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 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer 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 |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