• 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.
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Piecake said:
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
Click to expand...

It always struck me as odd given that she's had a consistently liberal record her entire political life
(Goldwater Girl lol)
. To the extent her positions have evolved, they've generally been on which Democrats (or society in general) have evolved. I can understand people disliking changing positions, but the secret Republican thing just seems unsupported by any real evidence.
 
S

Souldriver

Member
Looking at the evolution of the electoral votes per state, it's obvious that the population growth is in the southern, republican states.

That growth is definitely coming from democratic leaning people, making those states more blue. But as of now they're still red, and therefore the influence of red states is growing.

Once they reach a certain threshold though, you get a double whammy of red states flipping blue and gaining electoral votes in the process.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Box of Kittens said:
It always struck me as odd given that she's had a consistently liberal record her entire political life
(Goldwater Girl lol)
. To the extent her positions have evolved, they've generally been on which Democrats (or society in general) have evolved. I can understand people disliking changing positions, but the secret Republican thing just seems unsupported by any real evidence.
Click to expand...

Chris Matthews a few months ago brought up an interesting point. Hillary has always been left of center. But, what we consider left of center has changed with time. I think this is probably a fair assessment. Twenty years ago being pro-gay marriage, for example, would be incredibly far, far left to the point of being unfeasible. Now, it's a far more centrist position. Again, it's pragmatism, which I have respect for.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
adam387 said:
Chris Matthews a few months ago brought up an interesting point. Hillary has always been left of center. But, what we consider left of center has changed with time. I think this is probably a fair assessment. Twenty years ago being pro-gay marriage, for example, would be incredibly far, far left to the point of being unfeasible. Now, it's a far more centrist position. Again, it's pragmatism, which I have respect for.
Click to expand...

Then what is considered left that isn't left of center and not far left?
 
E

Emarv

Member
adam387 said:
Trump on Saturday said it’d be “nice” to have a Republican majority as president, but said he doesn’t care if senators endorse him.

“That’s fine,” he said. “I’m not going to campaign [for them].”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4BJRWyTns
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Click to expand...

Reince-Priebus-MTP.jpg
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Abinash117 said:
Then what is considered left that isn't left of center and not far left?
Click to expand...

I consider left and left of center to be pretty synonymous.

Far left would be something like universal basic income. I would consider it positions that address a problem the left admits is an issue (ie income inequality) but stakes out a currently unattainable, unfeasible or unworkable solution. Again, though, it's a shifting definition.
 
S

Souldriver

Member
adam387 said:
Chris Matthews a few months ago brought up an interesting point. Hillary has always been left of center. But, what we consider left of center has changed with time. I think this is probably a fair assessment. Twenty years ago being pro-gay marriage, for example, would be incredibly far, far left to the point of being unfeasible. Now, it's a far more centrist position. Again, it's pragmatism, which I have respect for.
Click to expand...
Yep.

She's a pragmatist, who tries to match her own values to what is feasible and what is wanted by the general populace. It doesn't make for an interesting or inspiring message, and is the reason why people think she has no own convictions at all, and just flip flops like it's a hobby.

Generally speaking though, it's a sound strategy for actually getting things done. You work for change, but you also work in the context that is given you.

However, I still think she could do better trying to explain this to people. A while ago she did an interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air, where she was asked about her change in opinion over gay marriage, and she gave such a typical, long winded, political non-answer, it made me facepalm. Why don't you just say that you changed your mind? That as you get older and gain new perspective on things, your opinion changes along with it? People would be much more open to an honest answer like that, than what she was doing in that interview. In a way, that is what I think people mean when they say "I want politicians to tell it like it is". If you make mistakes, if you fuck up, if you changed your mind, ... just own it. People are more forgiving to people who admit mistakes, than those who don't.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Souldriver said:
Yep.

She's a pragmatist, who tries to match her own values to what is feasible and what is wanted by the general populace. It doesn't make for an interesting or inspiring message, and is the reason why people think she has no own convictions at all, and just flip flops like it's a hobby.

Generally speaking though, it's a sound strategy for actually getting things done. You work for change, but you also work in the context that is given you.

However, I still think she could do better trying to explain this to people. A while ago she did an interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air, where she was asked about her change in opinion over gay marriage, and she gave such a typical, long winded, political non-answer, it made me facepalm. Why don't you just say that you changed your mind? That as you get older and gain new perspective on things, your opinion changes along with it? People would be much more open to an honest answer like that, than what she was doing in that interview. In a way, that is what I think people mean when they say "I want politicians to tell it like it is". If you make mistakes, if you fuck up, if you changed your mind, ... just own it. People are more forgiving to people who admit mistakes, than those who don't.
Click to expand...

The issue is, I'm not entirely sure she did change her mind. She, like Obama, Biden and the rest, took the position that was politically feasible at the time. I believe all three have always believed in equality, but they couldn't come out and say it. That's why they quote unquote evolved. There was no evolution, only public perception.

It's an interesting argument. It may be more morally justifiable to stake the right position from the get go. BUT, if that somehow compromises your ability to create even incremental change...have you won anything, really? In the real world, ya, that's the stance to take. But, in politics, where even small amounts of change can lead to a snowball effect? I think pragmatism is the name of the game. Reach for the stars, but be happy if you at least touch the clouds.
 
S

Souldriver

Member
adam387 said:
The issue is, I'm not entirely sure she did change her mind. She, like Obama, Biden and the rest, took the position that was politically feasible at the time. I believe all three have always believed in equality, but they couldn't come out and say it. That's why they quote unquote evolved. There was no evolution, only public perception.

It's an interesting argument. It may be more morally justifiable to stake the right position from the get go. BUT, if that somehow compromises your ability to create even incremental change...have you won anything, really? In the real world, ya, that's the stance to take. But, in politics, where even small amounts of change can lead to a snowball effect? I think pragmatism is the name of the game. Reach for the stars, but be happy if you at least touch the clouds.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, that was actually the thing that Terry was trying to clear up. Was she always for equality but didn't publicly fight for it because it was political suicide? Or did she change her mind? Both options can be legitimately defended. Yet according to her it was neither. She didn't think of her political carreer, but she also didn't really change her mind. Eeuh... then what was it, woman? She just gave such a politicians non-answer. Sad!
 
A

ampere

Member
adam387 said:
http://www.out.com/sites/out.com/files/2015/05/05/tumblr_nnw26c4VKd1qiohboo8_r1_500.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]

So... Reince is gonna need a lot more Baileys.

[quote="adam387, post: 206480560"]The issue is, I'm not entirely sure she did change her mind. She, like Obama, Biden and the rest, took the position that was politically feasible at the time. I believe all three have always believed in equality, but they couldn't come out and say it. That's why they quote unquote evolved. There was no evolution, only public perception.[/QUOTE]

Maybe? I really wish I could see inside Obama's head 8 years ago and see how he actually felt about gay marriage. Was it a facade to be unsure about it because that was politically safer? Was he actually unsure about it?
Click to expand...
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Souldriver said:
Well yeah, that was actually the thing that Terry was trying to clear up. Was she always for equality but didn't publicly fight for it because it was political suicide? Or did she change her mind? Both options can be legitimately defended. Yet according to her it was neither. She didn't think of her political carreer, but she also didn't really change her mind. Eeuh... then what was it, woman? She just gave such a politicians non-answer. Sad!
Click to expand...

Both are dependable, but both are huge vulnerabilities. If she says she always supported it but couldn't say it, she's a liar. If she actually changed positions, she's a flip flopper who goes with the political winds. I agree she can't have it both ways, but that's what politicians always try to do.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
ampere said:
So... Reince is gonna need a lot more Baileys.



Maybe? I really wish I could see inside Obama's head 8 years ago and see how he actually felt about gay marriage. Was it a facade to be unsure about it because that was politically safer? Was he actually unsure about it?
Click to expand...

Obama was for it in 1996 (I think it was then...sometime around then). Then less for it in 2004. Then against it in 2008. Then for it in 2010.
 
A

ampere

Member
adam387 said:
Obama was for it in 1996 (I think it was then...sometime around then). Then less for it in 2004. Then against it in 2008. Then for it in 2010.
Click to expand...

thefro said:
Well, we know how he felt 20 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/QsvK7lF.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

Well that answers that! Was probably a politics thing then.

I assume that's why he hasn't done more regarding marijuana legalization. I guess saying they wouldn't stop Washington and Colorado was as much as he could feasibly do at the time.
Click to expand...
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
Bernie protesters planning to disturb Philadelphia will have a minimal impact since all 3 of Philadelphia's major stadiums/arenas are surrounded by a sea of parking lots away from the Downtown core.

Protesters on the outside will have nobody to listen to them but concrete and pavement
 
A

Abinash117

Member
adam387 said:
I consider left and left of center to be pretty synonymous.

Far left would be something like universal basic income. I would consider it positions that address a problem the left admits is an issue (ie income inequality) but stakes out a currently unattainable, unfeasible or unworkable solution. Again, though, it's a shifting definition.
Click to expand...

I see that make sense, although I don't necessarily think it has to be unworkable ideas, but how common the idea is and how much it would change the country, even what can be seen as workable can be unworkable. Raising the minimum wage can be center-left idea, but likely scenarios can make unworkable in politics; pretty much like many of Obama's ideas.

Also I don't think calling Hillary a pragmatist is doing her much favors. I don't necessarily think she is one, but she is skilled politician to know that some of the stuff either just can't happen right now or the far-left idea doesn't actually make sense whatsoever. Basically the government single payer vs expanding ACA or the $12 or $15. I think some politicians have knowledge that some ideas aren't just achievable, but is something that is harmful. She will most for ideas that are achievable, but that can very helpful and can be seen as being out there. Her renewable energy and automatic voter resignation can be seen as out there too, but it also can be achievable. Pretty much you have to be pragmatic if you are a politician, it comes with the territory and she probably have the insight to know that. She will push for progressive issues and possibly compromise, but I don't think she will settle if it's a very crappy deal unless it is a stepping stone to improve it or get a better deal. If she wants something then she'll do her best to get it. Expanding Obamacare is the smartest, quickest, easiest way in her mind probably. Doing what Bernie wanted to do was probably just stupid and unnecessary harmful. He would be wasting his time fighting a fight he can't win, even if he did he probably had no specifics to actually how it'll work, and it quite possibly it would be harmful for the government and possibly hurt the rest of the populace once the bills are passed. Plus, it hinges on his tax plan. Hillary is most likely thinking critical of her policies.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
jack_package_200 said:
I still predict his campaign will end up with a massive amount of debt. Odds are the DNC will bail him out.
Click to expand...

The Politico article said he was paranoid about being in debt, and demanded they keep $10 million in cash at all times. I'm hoping he's not in too much debt. If he is, though, we (the DNC) should help retire it.
 
J

jack_package_200

Banned
adam387 said:
The Politico article said he was paranoid about being in debt, and demanded they keep $10 million in cash at all times. I'm hoping he's not in too much debt. If he is, though, we (the DNC) should help retire it.
Click to expand...

"Wow, I can't believe Bernie was successfully bought by Hillary. For shame. #jillsteinforpresident"
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Abinash117 said:
I see that make sense, although I don't necessarily think it has to be unworkable ideas, but how common the idea is and how much it would change the country, even what can be seen as workable can be unworkable. Raising the minimum wage can be center-left idea, but likely scenarios can make unworkable in politics; pretty much like many of Obama's ideas.

Also I don't think calling Hillary a pragmatist is doing her much favors. I don't necessarily think she is one, but she is skilled politician to know that some of the stuff either just can't happen right now or the far-left idea doesn't actually make sense whatsoever. Basically the government single payer vs expanding ACA or the $12 or $15. I think some politicians have knowledge that some ideas aren't just achievable, but is something that is harmful. She will most for ideas that are achievable, but that can very helpful and can be seen as being out there. Her renewable energy and automatic voter resignation can be seen as out there too, but it also can be achievable. Pretty much you have to be pragmatic if you are a politician, it comes with the territory and she probably have the insight to know that. She will push for progressive issues and possibly compromise, but I don't think she will settle if it's a very crappy deal unless it is a stepping stone to improve it or get a better deal.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. I think it's important to note that solutions to problem can be on one end of the spectrum too. Raising the minimum wage is probably a centrist position. Raising it to $12 is to the left. Raising it to $15 is further left. Giving everyone a minimum income is even more to the left. It's all a matter of degrees.

Like Hillary said she'd rather under promise and over deliver. That's just who she is after the years she's spent knowing how shit the opposition can be.

jack_package_200 said:
"Wow, I can't believe Bernie was successfully bought by Hillary. For shame. #jillsteinforpresident"
Click to expand...

Well, Bernie has to return all of the donations he got because he didn't win. (Seriously, people on S4P said they want their money back).
 
S

Souldriver

Member
adam387 said:
Both are dependable, but both are huge vulnerabilities. If she says she always supported it but couldn't say it, she's a liar. If she actually changed positions, she's a flip flopper who goes with the political winds. I agree she can't have it both ways, but that's what politicians always try to do.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think in general there isn't enough credit given to the idea that people like a honest politician. If she had said her views had evolved, perhaps with some sappy anecdote about how the story of a gay couple struggling changed her mind, the question would be answered in half a minute. But she chose the typical political non answer, which makes everyones eyes roll. And to think this was in an NPR interview. She's basically playing a home game. She definitely could've been honest about it.


Maybe I'm being naive, and had she given an honest answer, the attack ads against her would write themselves. It's possible. But generally, I think a politician being a little more candit and from the gut would be more appreciated. I'm not talking about shitty pandering or krass quotes, or god forbid, a stream of shit and consciousness like Trumps ramblings, but more of an honest answer instead of an answer the handlers have said is "the most diplomatic, least damaging out of all posibilities".
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I hate to be a pessimistic Pete, but I would be shocked if Hillary does any better against Trump than Obama did under McCain. That's probably as good as she can get it in the best case scenario.

In a perfect world, taking one look at Trump's comments on minorities would make any reasonable Republican run for the hills into the safe arms of the Democrat party. Unfortunately, there are two kinds of Republican voters: the kind who like Trump's racism, and the kind who don't mind it. And there's a lot of the latter in this country. Not to mention this report from the NYT which says that there's a lot more White voters than people think.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Souldriver said:
I don't know. I think in general there isn't enough credit given to the idea that people like a honest politician. If she had said her views had evolved, perhaps with some sappy anecdote about how the story of a gay couple struggling changed her mind, the question would be answered in half a minute. But she chose the typical political non answer, which makes everyones eyes roll. And to think this was in an NPR interview. She's basically playing a home game. She definitely could've been honest about it.


Maybe I'm being naive, and had she given an honest answer, the attack ads against her would write themselves. It's possible. But generally, I think a politician being a little more candit and from the gut would be more appreciated. I'm not talking about shitty pandering or krass quotes, but more of an honest answer instead of an answer the handlers have said is "the most diplomatic, least damaging out of all posibilities".
Click to expand...

Flip flopping has always been an optics issue for politicians, even though, intellectually, we all know people are people and change their minds. The good news is, changing your mind from a less equal to a more equal position is easier to defend. After Kerry's very public flip flops, though, I understand being a little camera shy to admit you changed positions.

People will see what they want to see. It's like the "see that bitch eating crackers like she owns the place." Hillary's been through this shit for years. I get her politician speak when she does it. Do I wish she didn't have to? Definitely.
 
S

Souldriver

Member
Oblivion said:
I hate to be a pessimistic Pete, but I would be shocked if Hillary does any better against Trump than Obama did under McCain. That's probably as good as she can get it in the best case scenario.

In a perfect world, taking one look at Trump's comments on minorities would make any reasonable Republican run for the hills into the safe arms of the Democrat party. Unfortunately, there are two kinds of Republican voters: the kind who like Trump's racism, and the kind who don't mind it. And there's a lot of the latter in this country. Not to mention this report from the NYT which says that there's a lot more White voters than people think.
Click to expand...
I don't know.

This time Hillary isn't the deciding factor, as Obama was in 2008. Back then, Obama got people to the polls in huge numbers. I don't think Hillary can create that enthusiasm. This time it depends on how deflated republican turnout ends up being. If Trump is really such a toxic candidate he can't get enough republicans at the voting booth, I could see a 2008 scenario. If republicans fall in line however, I predict more of a 2012 scenario, or even a little closer.
 
I

itschris

Member
Politico: Furious GOP donors stew over Trump

At another discussion session during the day, which featured top Romney alumni Stuart Stevens and Matt Rhoades, Ana Navarro, a Republican contributor and ubiquitous cable news personality, called Trump a “racist” and a “vulgarian and a pig who has made disgusting comments about women for years.” (Neither Whitman nor Navarro would comment.)

Even Ryan, who has endorsed Trump despite criticizing his behavior, joked during his presentation on Friday that in a recent conversation with magician David Copperfield, he said that he wished he could make himself disappear.

The incidents, which were relayed by three sources who were present — one of whom described them as “shocking” — illustrates the intense anger coursing through the GOP donor community. Far from letting go of their white-knuckled opposition to Trump, they’re stewing in it.
Click to expand...

Also:

Zwick noted that Trump is far behind where Romney was in the donor chase at this point four years ago. One option, he said, is for Trump to accept public financing. Under federal election laws, that would allow him to receive a lump sum of government funds while capping how much he’d be able to spend. In 2008, John McCain accepted public financing but found himself massively outspent by Barack Obama.

The prospect of a controversial billionaire accepting taxpayer funding would be one of the more bizarre twists of the 2016 campaign. But for a struggling Trump, it might be worth pursuing — especially with rising doubts about whether he can fill his coffers.
Click to expand...

Trump, accepting public financing? That would be quite the twist!
 
S

Souldriver

Member
adam387 said:
Flip flopping has always been an optics issue for politicians, even though, intellectually, we all know people are people and change their minds. The good news is, changing your mind from a less equal to a more equal position is easier to defend. After Kerry's very public flip flops, though, I understand being a little camera shy to admit you changed positions.

People will see what they want to see. It's like the "see that bitch eating crackers like she owns the place." Hillary's been through this shit for years. I get her politician speak when she does it. Do I wish she didn't have to? Definitely.
Click to expand...

Then we're on the same page.

Her years as a politican have basically consumed her, and you can see all of her public performances are practiced to a T. It's probably how she got this far, so I can't blame her for religiously following the script. But it's when she's more candit, more relaxed, that she really shines. And I think her, and her team, underestimate how that more "human" Hillary could be an asset in this election, where she's being portrayed as an unlikable robot.

Dunno, perhaps it's just me wanting to see a cackling sarcastic abuela.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 10m10 minutes ago

Goofy Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, pretended to be a Native American in order to advance her career. Very racist!
Click to expand...

He cannot stop with her.

OMG. If I was Elizabeth Forma, I would totally tweet

tumblr_lhwuj7e1Mj1qf4bql.gif
 
M

mo60

Member
Oblivion said:
I hate to be a pessimistic Pete, but I would be shocked if Hillary does any better against Trump than Obama did under McCain. That's probably as good as she can get it in the best case scenario.

In a perfect world, taking one look at Trump's comments on minorities would make any reasonable Republican run for the hills into the safe arms of the Democrat party. Unfortunately, there are two kinds of Republican voters: the kind who like Trump's racism, and the kind who don't mind it. And there's a lot of the latter in this country. Not to mention this report from the NYT which says that there's a lot more White voters than people think.
Click to expand...

Trump's pissing off more groups than even Mccain did if I recall. If you include demographic changes in the last eight years or so it's possible Hilary does better against trump than Obama did against Mccain.
 
M

mo60

Member
adam387 said:
Y'all have to add for the Clinton effect. Her upward gains ARE going to be limited because she's Hillary Clinton. Sad but true.
Click to expand...

I don't think she's going to do significantly better than Obama did in 08 but the potential is there for her to actually get do very very well in this election cycle despite her flaws. If Obama was running for president again trump would have been obliterated probably.
 
M

Maledict

Member
Thank gods - Politico is back to posting rubbish articles. After their recent decent stuff, I was glad to see that today they posted an article from David Plouffe on the primaries. Upon reading it, it's literally just a bunch of quotes from this weeks 'Keeping it 1600' podcast repackaged.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
Obama vs. Trump would've been an absolute bloodbath, especially since youth and minority turnout could be properly maximized. But that's irrelevant now.
 
I

itschris

Member
If the Libertarians do end up getting more votes than usual (something smallish like 3-5% of the vote would still be a lot more than the 1% they got in 2012), the margin between Clinton and Trump could be larger than Obama-McCain, even if Clinton gets a similar percentage of the vote as Obama (53%). That's assuming Gary Johnson takes more from Trump than Clinton.
 
M

mo60

Member
RastaMentality said:
Obama vs. Trump would've been an absolute bloodbath, especially since youth and minority turnout could be properly maximized. But that's irrelevant now.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking it would have been probably been a 20 point gap. With Hilary on the ticket the max the gap is around 15 points if everything goes perfect for which which is not likely.

itschris said:
If the Libertarians do end up getting more votes than usual (something smallish like 3-5% of the vote would still be a lot more than the 1% they got in 2012), the margin between Clinton and Trump could be larger than Obama-McCain, even if Clinton gets a similar percentage of the vote as Obama (53%). That's assuming Gary Johnson takes more from Trump than Clinton.
Click to expand...

Yep. I also think a third party candidate that is stronger than usually for a third party candidate could potentially put trump's vote share in the mid to high thirties unless the dems are able to do themselves without any unexpected outside help.
 
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