PoliGAF 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.
plagiarize said:
What we really need to do isn't to shame GOP members for caving to the NRA but to work to ruin the credibility of the NRA with it's members. The NRA doesn't represent it's members. It represents gun companies. That's what we need to convey.
Click to expand...
The NRA mostly represents itself, just look at what they did to Smith and Wesson.
And it's in their interest to maintain that culture war, since that's how they make their living. Like, closing the gun show loophole is not going to impact the bottom line of gun manufacturers significantly.
 
cartoon_soldier said:
Awesome, gg Kennedy



http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-clinton-campaign-seems-to-think-pennsylvania-is-in-the-bag/

wasserman-voterreg-1.png
Click to expand...
Philly will save the day as always.

Also there is no way Pittsburgh/Allegheny county goes red.
 
Geg said:
Towards Trump as in shifting from likely Democrat to only leaning Democrat. He's still giving Clinton the lead over Trump
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should've been more clear. It's the same deal with AZ, GA, and UT -- they're still lean Trump and likely Trump, they just got more competitive than in the prior forecast.
 
Not the least bit worried about PA.

It's not shifting quickly enough.. and we'll be seeing Hillary/Obama's behemoth data/GOTV machine up against Trump's spit-&-duct-tape data/GOTV operation.
 
Chichikov said:
The NRA mostly represents itself, just look at what they did to Smith and Wesson.
And it's in their interest to maintain that culture war, since that's how they make their living. Like, closing the gun show loophole is not going to impact the bottom line of gun manufacturers significantly.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with Smith and Wesson. The only mention of them on the NRA wiki page is that they contributed a million dollars to the NRA in 2008. There's a link to some Forbes page in the references which is meant to be about something they did in Latin America, but Forbes is a train wreck and links to it only ever take me to the main page.
 
plagiarize said:
I disagree.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with Smith and Wesson. The only mention of them on the NRA wiki page is that they contributed a million dollars to the NRA in 2008. There's a link to some Forbes page in the references which is meant to be about something they did in Latin America, but Forbes is a train wreck and links to it only ever take me to the main page.
Click to expand...

The NRA destroyed Smith and Weston because they agreed to sign up to Clinton's anti-gun measures at the very end of his presidency.
 
Maledict said:
The NRA destroyed Smith and Weston because they agreed to sign up to Clinton's anti-gun measures at the very end of his presidency.
Click to expand...

So a boycott that happened 16 years ago, that doesn't seem to have 'destroyed' Smith and Wesson. You'll forgive me for thinking that isn't relevant to criticisms of what the NRA are doing now where they are taking pro manufacturer stances against what their members believe.
 
Roland_Gunner said:
Fisher affirmed! This is literally the biggest win for Affirmative Action in decades.
Click to expand...
As a Texas alumni: fuck yes

I can't tell you how many white people I've known who try to make it out like being a minority when applying to universities is some massive and unfair advantage that white students looking to go to college can't overcome.

The number of people that tell my wife 'wow you're so lucky your husband is Mexican because your child is just gonna get so many scholarships because they'll be a minority' is infuriating
 
HylianTom said:
Today is a reminder for many voters: the fate of DAPA is effectively on the ballot in a few months.
Click to expand...

YAWP. It's the Supreme Court, dummy. Pretty much the byline this entire election, even prior to Scalia.

Looks like we'll have to wait for the abortion ruling until tomorrow.
 
I wonder if US v. Texas getting bumped out 4-4 will affect Garland's nomination.

Remember, this case was about the preliminary injunction, so the case will now proceed on the merits. Given that the judge is pretty mad at the government though there's a reasonable assumption that he will rule against Obama. That ruling will be appealed and quite probably go right back to SCOTUS. So the 4-4 here is a pretty explicit can-kick, but it probably does take DAPA off the table for at least a year. That's plenty of time for the Senate to go ahead and approve Garland in the wake of Trump.
 
I'm not even that mad because you know it would have been worse if Scalia were still alive. At least now, the case is still being kicked around the lower courts and could come back again.
 
Maledict said:
The NRA destroyed Smith and Weston because they agreed to sign up to Clinton's anti-gun measures at the very end of his presidency.
Click to expand...

plagiarize said:
So a boycott that happened 16 years ago, that doesn't seem to have 'destroyed' Smith and Wesson. You'll forgive me for thinking that isn't relevant to criticisms of what the NRA are doing now where they are taking pro manufacturer stances against what their members believe.
Click to expand...

Chichikov said:
Yep.
http://www.businessinsider.com/smit...-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1
Click to expand...

This shows the NRA's organizing power. People are not voting with the NRA for their money but because of their ability to organize their members into single issue voting blocks.

NRA members may support background checks in polls, but when something passes that NRA doesn't like all these members will also organize against the person who voted for the bill.
 
cartoon_soldier said:
This shows the NRA's organizing power. People are not voting with the NRA for their money but because of their ability to organize their members into single issue voting blocks.

NRA members may support background checks in polls, but when something passes that NRA doesn't like all these members will also organize against the person who voted for the bill.
Click to expand...

I've noticed lately that people seem unable to realize that there are more ways of getting massive political influence than just spending a lot of money. Delivering votes is a huge one.
 
B-Dubs said:
I've noticed lately that people seem unable to realize that there are more ways of getting massive political influence than just spending a lot of money. Delivering votes is a huge one.
Click to expand...

The problem is also that Democrats spin it as Republicans are doing this due to NRA money when that's not the case at all. If Bloomberg cut a 10 million dollar check for NRCC they still aren't going to vote against the NRA.

Obama has been talking about supporters of gun control need to do some single issue voting too.
 
Alisha Rai ‏@AlishaRai 10h10 hours ago

Every time the GOP says this is "childish" or "pouting", I just remember that time they literally read Dr. Seuss to block healthcare reform.
Click to expand...

Ice cold.
 
titiklabingapat said:
It's kinda funny to think that California used to be a reliably Republican and anti-immigrant state.
Click to expand...

California was considered a key part of the supposed Republican Electoral College lock in the 1980s, and there was some debate within the Democratic Party over whether to make it a target. It made it into the last-ditch "18-state strategy" for Mike Dukakis to eke out a victory in the Electoral College, but the DLC (remember them?) derided the idea of going after California as "the California dream" and suggested targeting the South again.

Of course there's some nuance that is lost here. California did go Republican in six straight elections from 1968 to 1988, but five of those elections were Republican victories and the one Democratic win was close. In reality California was a traditional swing state at the presidential level that was going Republican because the country was.

Ultimately California's movement was more purple-to-blue than the red-to-blue that is sometimes suggested, but either way an important factor was the California GOP torching the bridge with Latinos.
 
benjipwns said:
Whooosh.
Click to expand...

Truly a great contribution to the discussion. Worthy of being recorded in the Jedi Archives.

Cybit said:
...even the freaking Obamas have pointed out that "those people" need guns.

http://time.com/4172374/michelle-obama-gun-control-town-hall/

But please, continue to tell the Obamas about their Rambo Fantasies.
Click to expand...

Obama is smart, and knows not to say it if he wants it. Hell, I'd do the same thing! But the ultimate goal is to do whatever we can to reduce firearms in the country. Period.

Cybit said:
The problem is that the (very) current climate is around restriction and banning, rather than training, registration, waiting periods, universal background checks. Now I want to strangle the NRA for opposing those, and most gun owners are perfectly fine with those kinds of changes. (Worth mention; even if you removed all gun related homicides from our homicide rate, it would still be higher than the total homicide rate for most of the countries we compare ourselves to).
Click to expand...

And the bolded is what I suspected you'd argue for. It's meaningless for most mass shootings. Stuff like Sandy Hook? Your response is "wow, that sucks." People who legally own weapons can shoot a lot of people in a short amount of time. If it's their first offense, then a background check is pointless. Training would just make them deadlier. Registration is great if we want to know whether the shooter owned the gun he used to murder a lot of people with, but that's not much comfort to the dead or their families. A waiting period eventually ends, and people determined to kill can wait.

And I still want all of those things! But they have a shit ton of flaws, and notably, they do nothing at all for the shootings that we pray over every fucking year. All it boils down to is more moments of silence and more dead people. Over a fucking firearm that you don't need.

Can anyone tell me why it's illegal to own a rocket launcher or a tank? It's all just property, right? Or do we restrict ownership of things because they're dangerous to society?
 
excelsiorlef said:
Ok maybe I'm at bitch eating crackers with this guy but this is exactly what I worry about when Sanders starts endorsing and purity testing That we're just going to get a lot of people who won't actually do anything to help the progressive movement because they're not good candidates but hey they pass the ideological purity test.
Click to expand...

Frankly most of those quotes would be believable as random reddit comments, right down to the naive view of negotiating as "staking out the furthest left position initially will lead to the best possible outcome." It comes across as pretty bad.
 
Aaron Strife said:
http://floridapolitics.com/archives...s-miami-story-exaggerated-business-background

Murphy's campaign is pushing hard against the CPA/small business owner story, for what that's worth. If what Murphy says is true this will probably blow over. If they have a silver bullet somewhere, gulp.
Click to expand...

The original article was weirdly amateurish in its tone and writing. It raised a tiny red flag to me but wasn't worth mentioning because the actual reporting could still be solid.

Overall this seems like a combo of some moderate but real bullshitting from Murphy and a reporter who sounds like he has an ax to grind.
 
Politics Polls ‏@Politics_Polls 6m6 minutes ago
National General Election:
Clinton 44% (+10)
Trump 34%

@Reuters/@ipsosnewspolls 6/18-22
Click to expand...

Note: Ipsos tends to be the democratic outlier, so don't get too excited.
 
I hate to ignore the very real impact the split SCOTUS decision will have on millions of American families, but it is probably the best decision that could have been made to help hispanic turnout. The stakes were already high, but shit just got really real for millions.
 
Pittsburgh isn't going red, especially since the median age in the city is trending downward with the creating of new businesses keeping around students for the first time in decades.

It's becoming a pretty heavy tech hub and downtown is hip, very different from the city I grew up in.
 
Bowdz said:
I hate to ignore the very real impact the split SCOTUS decision will have on millions of American families, but it is probably the best decision that could have been made to help hispanic turnout. The stakes were already high, but shit just got really real for millions.
Click to expand...
I saw the other day that Latino registration is skyrocketing in Georgia.

Would be nice if we could pull a surprise win in the Senate race there too - the 08 election ended up being like 49-46 which pushed it to a runoff.
 
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Yeah, it's been very D friendly, but the spread has also gained a point in each of their last two polls, so that's a good trend regardless.
Click to expand...

This is all without any explicit Sanders endorsement, and before the real campaigning takes off (where I expect Hillary will do well with her infrastructure and surrogates). I''m as confident as I ever have been in a presidential election.
 
AntraxSuicide said:
This is all without any explicit Sanders endorsement, and before the real campaigning takes off (where I expect Hillary will do well with her infrastructure and surrogates). I''m as confident as I ever have been in a presidential election.
Click to expand...
Yup.

I expect Hillary to hit 50 after the convention and never look back.
 
balladofwindfishes said:
I think even her unfavorables will erode away after the convention.

There's no way she's actually that hated.
Click to expand...

She's only hated when she's campaigning, a noted phenomenon. It's why I chalk a lot of it up to sexism; people start using words like "ambitious" and "entitled" when referring to her, where that would just be positive adjectives for every other man who's running around her.
 
balladofwindfishes said:
I think even her unfavorables will erode away after the convention.

There's no way she's actually that hated.
Click to expand...

GOP propaganda goes along way. I hate to say it, but Sanders also contributed to the narrative that Hillary is more corrupt than most business-friendly Democrats. As time goes by, the juxtaposition of her sanity against Trump's absurdity will bring down her unfavorables.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom