• 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 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Third Strike

Member
How well liked is Bill in Arkansas these days? Could it become competitive due to Bill's popularity there, or has that ship sailed for the Democrats?
 
U

User 463088

Banned
I also have it from a very reliable source that there's a good chance that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Oh, and he might also be black.

DEVELOPING.
 
G

Geg

Member
Georgia and Arizona are two states I've seen mentioned as possibly flipping, what would be chances of that happening?
 
M

mo60

Member
Geg said:
Georgia and Arizona are two states I've seen mentioned as possibly flipping, what would be chances of that happening?
Click to expand...

About 30% right now.It depends on how good of a ground game the Clinton camp has in those states.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
StopMakingSense said:
AZ has more potential to flip based on turnout IMO. Georgia feels like another cycle off. But close.
Click to expand...

AZ is possible but is very much turnout dependent. Latinos voting 80% Dem doesn't matter if they continue to have 50% turnout.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Arizona actually has quite a higher percentage of whites than Georgia does, but they are more likely to vote Democratic than Georgia's (if it's a good year for Democrats, they'll get about 30% of whites in GA). Turnout among minorities would be key to winning those states.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
I'm not too concerned with them flipping this cycle. To me, if we can use this cycle to build infrastructure in these states that's a huge boost to us. Unless things drastically change, the GOP isn't going to have the money to build a huge ground game. If we can utiilze the higher turnout in a Presidential year to start building up our network. In a cycle or two, when places like Texas, Arizona and Georgia are in play due to demographic shifts...we can take advantage of it.
 
S

Souldriver

Member
Omg you guys, you're making my head spin with all the talk about an electoral blowout and deep red states being flipped.

Could you imagine election night...

*MSNBC*
*majestic marching music*

"The polls have now closed in Arkansas, and it's too early to project a winner. For now it is too close to call."
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Macho Madness said:
I think most of us expect if the election were held today that it would look like 2012 with NC being a complete tossup.
Click to expand...

Yeah, basically. There are only four swing states; presidential elections are getting increasingly predictable as partisanship increases. The fact that we're saying a Clinton blowout consists of her only converting one non-swing red state (Georgia), or two at best with Arizona, tells you how uncompetitive American democracy is right now.
 
T

Third Strike

Member
Crab said:
Yeah, basically. There are only four swing states; presidential elections are getting increasingly predictable as partisanship increases. The fact that we're saying a Clinton blowout consists of her only converting one non-swing red state (Georgia), or two at best with Arizona, tells you how uncompetitive American democracy is right now.
Click to expand...

I think Clinton will carry the same states in the Midwest as Obama, but I'm definitely concerned for future elections. If Wisconsin, Michigan, or Ohio were to become red states in the future, I would hope Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Arizona could offset such a lost. The good thing about the latter group of states is that their electoral value will increase with each census, every decade. The first group will likely lose points as their population becomes stagnant, or even declines. Just need some decent gerrymandering reform, and then the House could become reliably blue again.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Valhelm said:
There's a lot of misogyny in what's left of the dwindling Bernie or Bust camp
Click to expand...

What can really hurt a movement like Sanders' is that it's got a huge online presence, where it's impossible to tell how many people are there at a glance (versus a rally or protest in public, where you can tell).

When I talk about Bernie Bros, I'm referring to the crazy minority. The thing is, a lot of the sane people have left (evidenced by declining traffic in those online places), but the crazies are still there. As the sane people leave, there's nothing to indicate that happening. It's still just posts and replies, so it makes it a lot harder to believe there were normal supporters. Hell, if I didn't know any personally (which I do), then I'd be curious who the sane ones were right about now.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Y2Kev said:
Yes. Dramatic reduction in polling places in minority areas do not inspire confidence for the general.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. It's why I'm more skeptical about Arizona even though demographically it is marginally more favourable than Georgia. Arizona's Democratic party is a shambles.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Crab said:
Yeah, basically. There are only four swing states; presidential elections are getting increasingly predictable as partisanship increases. The fact that we're saying a Clinton blowout consists of her only converting one non-swing red state (Georgia), or two at best with Arizona, tells you how uncompetitive American democracy is right now.
Click to expand...

Actually, my optimistic blowout scenario would include Georgia, Arizona, Mississippi, and Utah. Granted, that's down to how offensive certain groups find Trump, including Mormons.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Four years ago, Jonathan Bernstein of the Washington Monthly wrote that people who believed Mitt Romney would move left if he got elected were ignoring history. Once in office, presidents almost always try to carry out their pre-election agendas. When they’re unable to keep those promises, it’s usually because of congressional opposition—not because they’ve discarded campaign rhetoric to pursue other goals.

As Bernstein notes, political-science research backs this up: Jeff Fishel of American University wrote a book called Presidents and Promises in which he found that, from Kennedy to Reagan, presidents almost always try to keep their campaign commitments. Gerald Pomper of Rutgers tracked party platforms from 1944-1976 and found that two-thirds of the winning candidate’s policy pledges were at least partly fulfilled after four years. Michael Krukones of Bellarmine College wrote a book, Promises and Performance, arguing that presidents from Wilson to Carter kept about three-quarters of their campaign promises.
Click to expand...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/promises-promises/485981/

But of course this doesnt apply to Clinton who is a criminal, fraud, liar, and secret conservative republican
 
U

User 463088

Banned
What in the hell possessed Romney to use the term "trickle down" though? My god, Romney was shit as a candidate.

CksWjFVUoAALrOh.jpg


OUR NEXT VICE PRESIDENT MARCHING IN PRIDE.

YASSSS QUEEN.

Also, queen, dem shoes! <3
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Cybit said:
I enjoy actual discussions, but in the OT threads that I see that are tied to identity politics, in my experience, tend to have a lot of folks using social justice as a cudgel for being an asshole and it being "OK". (The Trump thread where folks were justifying actual fucking terrorism because they were minorities might have done it for me).
Click to expand...

So as one of the people posting in that thread, and as somebody who generally likes your posts but tends to find myself a little at odds with you on SJW threads/topics despite us apparently mostly agreeing, I thought I would respond to this.

I think this is an unfair reading of the conversation going on. I think those threads are mostly mostly about people's perspectives on societally accepted violence.

The concept of nonviolent civil disobedience rests on the assumption of a general societal agreement on the immorality of violence. The key idea is that your unwillingness to engage in violence, coupled with the violence of your enemies, will demonstrate the moral correctness of your position and create general support for your cause. In short, it assumes people will condemn the establishment for being unnecessarily violent towards you.

But if this weren't true, obviously, then nonviolent resistance is just suicide. If people generally agree that, if somebody is blocking the street, beating them or shooting them is fine and appropriate, then blocking the street would just result in injury or death on your part and no particular impetus to change for anybody.

Many people would argue, with some justice, that America is not a country with a general societal agreement on the immorality of violence when that violence is practiced on people of color. (Or on political outsiders in general -- see the Ludlow Massacre -- but especially today it has become more concentrated.) They would argue that the American society reserves the right to perpetrate terrible violence on people of color, not just for dissenting, but at any time and for no particular reason.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that if you lived in a society where there was no agreement by people not to commit violence against you, you would not feel responsible for avoiding violence against people who threatened you. That's just self-defense, right?

Now, I don't really think that people going to a Trump rally are threatening anybody, because, you know, he's a terrible candidate that will lose like 45 states. So, as I said, I wouldn't commit violence against them and I don't think it is appropriate to do so. But I can understand the thought process on the part of those who do, even though I disagree with it. A lot of people in those threads are happy to assert a position of complete nonviolence because they're very confident the violence their society threatens, and deploys, every day will never be turned against them. That is not a confidence everybody shares.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
234
42K
Bloobs replied
Xbox 360 'First Party' dev/pub output DID NOT drop in 2nd half after Kinect, but barely changed. People are likely mixing up TP exclusives with FP.
2 3
148
8K
feynoob replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
58K
DGrayson replied
All Major PlayStation Franchises And Their Current Status
|OT| News Platform
44
3K
dorkimoe replied
Top Bottom