-
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
- Thread starter Retromelon
- Start date
- Status
User 463088
Banned
Makes about as much sense as using an exit poll as legal evidence.
Clinton and Trump are tied in a new Utah poll.
Current going:
35% Trump
35% Clinton
16% Gary Johnson
13% Undecided
1% Won't vote
Unfavorability ratings:
65% Trump
67% Clinton
Utah went +48 Republican in 2012, +28 in 2008.
Current going:
35% Trump
35% Clinton
16% Gary Johnson
13% Undecided
1% Won't vote
Unfavorability ratings:
65% Trump
67% Clinton
Utah went +48 Republican in 2012, +28 in 2008.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
One reason we don't know how to reduce racism is that no one gives a shit about reducing racism. Jigsaw classrooms might be effective at reducing racism or might not, but there's been like two studies done on Jigsaw classrooms in the last 15 years and they have less than 50 citations each.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
User 463088
Banned
That's incredible. I don't expect to win Utah, but the fact that they are polling close is glorious. Mormons must hate Trump
I suppose if enough GoP voters don't vote or vote for Johnson it might be possible...
I mean there was never a point where Romney polled less than 30 points over Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ut/utah_romney_vs_obama-1763.html
Maybe that's the "Mormon factor" for Romney though. He is basically only liked by Mormons.
Looking at the Obama/McCain polling
So this time of year in 2008 it was about 20 points in McCain's favor. This shit is so juicy.
the excuse i see often, is election fraud by the 'establishment'
User 463088
Banned
And the only way election fraud didn't happen was for Bernie to win.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Johnson is socially liberal (other than hating Muslims) and the most hardcore economic conservative you've ever seen. Utah is the most socially conservative state and is fairly liberal economically.
He's going to get like 2% here once people have any idea who he is.
User 85168
Banned
.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
But this sums up Bernies plan for income inequality. What you can take away from countries like Sweden is not that they are less racist than anyone else, but that decent public systems allows minorities to bypass some of the racial barriers. Not all, and not that this negate racism, but you lose less minorities, less mentally sick, less disenfranchised because they are not held back by lack of health care, education, pension, welfare and so on, in the same way.
It's always made me so sad to see so many people here on this forum who thinks Bernies fight for income inequality is a economic issue. It's a social issue. It's not a problem that you have a hierarchy, or really rich people. It's a problem when people are so poor they are reduced to a shit life.
But that narrative has disingenuously been mantled by people who I don't really feel understand social democracies.
I got the impression after the Univision interview that people were shocked that Bernie didn't knew the platform he ran on. But Bernies policies have very very little to do with actual socialism. Social Democracy is highly capitalistic, it's highly for free trade and free markets.
It might be the naming scheme that prompts this violent, almost unbelievable level of misunderstanding. It's called socialism after all, it's called income inequality. I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that people will run with it based on the name.
Furthermore, Bernies camp has just not been good at educating people. It really does seem that many within his own base as moderates don't really get it either, though I wonder if it's really uncommon for the vast majority of politician to have a base that primarily consist of voters who don't really understand a lot of the policies they put forth. "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter".
When you're talking about repeated social circles among lower classes, be they minorities or not, in every society I can think of, the tendency is for kids to follow in their parents footsteps. That is as true for kids in sweden as it is in China or the united states. Have highly educated parents? Much higher chance for those kids to get a high degree. The passing of skills, resources, time, money, attention, experiences, guidance has a lot to say.
So kids who grow in poor households don't get to have those advantages, and so their path is already set. If education then isn't free, if health care isn't free, then you are triple or quadruple fucked. Looking at this as a non-American I am fucking stunned that people can defend or accept a "worker harder / boot strap" response. There is a ton of sociological evidence that supports that to break out of these shackles for the masses, you need serious institutional support systems that allows people to break the cycles.
You're right. You cannot make people less racist. People have always hated their neighbors be it in the next village, next town, next country, next continent. There will always be this animosity and hatred for those who are not in your group, and this preys particularly on individuals who need to be in a flock have their biases validated. It's a big problem if those people are in a position to deny access to people who try to get a better a life.
I hate to resort to simplistic and reductioninst thinking but honestly the recent conversation can be summed up as:
and
As someone else said its a matter of priorities. I don't see how you can make the Democratic platform more appealing to "working class whites" without also making it less appealing or more marginalizing to various minority groups. "Lifiting everybody up" has continuously proven to be a worthwhile goal to aim for but it doesn't solve racism/sexism/etc.
and
You can replace "MISANDRY" with "REVERSE RACISM" or "GAY/TRANSEXUAL AGENDA" if you want
As someone else said its a matter of priorities. I don't see how you can make the Democratic platform more appealing to "working class whites" without also making it less appealing or more marginalizing to various minority groups. "Lifiting everybody up" has continuously proven to be a worthwhile goal to aim for but it doesn't solve racism/sexism/etc.
RustyNails
Member
If Mittens comes out for Hill...
Basically what I've gathered from reading his posts. Big rally photos and exit poll votes are worth more than one stan, one vote. You're a hack, Dan.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
retromelon, fantastic OP but you didn't include the last thread
but you didn't include the last thread Bam Bam Baklava
Member
He has already said no to that.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
this is why the one-liners come to you so easily
User 463088
Banned
That's all fine, but we're not just talking about racism here. There are elements of racism, sexism and (particularly) homophobia that are not rooted in income inequality. Do we need to do something about income inequality? Absolutely! But we cannot, and should not focus on it to the exclusion of other issues.
Well, Bernie has never, ever been good at explaining how he is going to do all the magical things he was promising to do. His lack of specificity in policy was a problem. It did hurt him with voters, I'm sure. His answer to many questions he didn't want to answer was "I'm too busy running for President to know the answer to that k thnx." H
Well, I have no issues with socialism. I wouldn't exactly call myself a socialist, but it doesn't make me foam at the mouth or anything. However, I realize I'm to the left of most of the country. Socialism doesn't play well in the United States. It just doesn't. He can call it whatever he likes, and I agree that social democracy is not the same as socialism, but there would have been major issues with "socialism" had he made it to the General. Luckily, he's not so we don't have to worry about those now.
When you're talking about repeated social circles among lower classes, be they minorities or not, in every society I can think of, the tendency is for kids to follow in their parents footsteps. That is as true for kids in sweden as it is in China or the united states. Have highly educated parents? Much higher chance for those kids to get a high degree. The passing of skills, resources, time, money, attention, experiences, guidance has a lot to say.
So kids who grow in poor households don't get to have those advantages, and so their path is already set. If education then isn't free, if health care isn't free, then you are triple or quadruple fucked. Looking at this as a non-American I am fucking stunned that people can defend or accept a "worker harder / boot strap" response. There is a ton of sociological evidence that supports that to break out of these shackles for the masses, you need serious institutional support systems that allows people to break the cycles.
You're right. You cannot make people less racist. People have always hated their neighbors be it in the next village, next town, next country, next continent. There will always be this animosity and hatred for those who are not in your group, and this preys particularly on individuals who need to be in a flock have their biases validated. It's a big problem if those people are in a position to deny access to people who try to get a better a life.
The issue is that the Democratic party is not solely made up of issues surrounding just one area of inequality. Focusing just on income inequality, as Bernie did, doesn't help people like me who do fine financially but still face institutional homophobia. It doesn't help the woman who can't have an abortion because her rights are restricted because of someone else's religion. Income inequality isn't responsible for all institutional racism.
The Democratic party has to try and address all of these issues simultaneously, because the GOP sure as hell won't. We are not a one issue party, unless we want to brand the issue "inequality."
Bernie's issue, insofar as he was unable to win the nomination, was rooted in his inability to talk about things other than income inequality. I don't mean that he never mentioned them, because I'm sure he did from time to time. But, he was never able to define a stance other than "Ya, that's important to....BUT millionaires...." When we are a party made up of such different differences, a candidate who doesn't focus policy on more than one is going to lose. S/he'll lose every single time.
excelsiorlef
Member
That's not impressive, runner up was Ted Cruz, who is even worse.
he GOP is not a respectable political party, it should basically be considered a hate group more or less frankly.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
excelsiorlef
Member
He also won WV because a chunk of them like something like 30 to 40% were people planning to vote Trump in the GE and were just voting against Clinton.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
What should the media do about Gary Johnson?
He's getting like 15% of the vote, but there's no evidence whatsoever that his platform is popular with anyone in America or that "his supporters" know who he is.
He's getting like 15% of the vote, but there's no evidence whatsoever that his platform is popular with anyone in America or that "his supporters" know who he is.
15% in Utah?
Abinash117
Member
But this sums up Bernies plan for income inequality. What you can take away from countries like Sweden is not that they are less racist than anyone else, but that decent public systems allows minorities to bypass some of the racial barriers. Not all, and not that this negate racism, but you lose less minorities, less mentally sick, less disenfranchised because they are not held back by lack of health care, education, pension, welfare and so on, in the same way.
It's always made me so sad to see so many people here on this forum who thinks Bernies fight for income inequality is a economic issue. It's a social issue. It's not a problem that you have a hierarchy, or really rich people. It's a problem when people are so poor they are reduced to a shit life.
But that narrative has disingenuously been mantled by people who I don't really feel understand social democracies.
I got the impression after the Univision interview that people were shocked that Bernie didn't knew the platform he ran on. But Bernies policies have very very little to do with actual socialism. Social Democracy is highly capitalistic, it's highly for free trade and free markets.
It might be the naming scheme that prompts this violent, almost unbelievable level of misunderstanding. It's called socialism after all, it's called income inequality. I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that people will run with it based on the name.
Furthermore, Bernies camp has just not been good at educating people. It really does seem that many within his own base as moderates don't really get it either, though I wonder if it's really uncommon for the vast majority of politician to have a base that primarily consist of voters who don't really understand a lot of the policies they put forth. "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter".
When you're talking about repeated social circles among lower classes, be they minorities or not, in every society I can think of, the tendency is for kids to follow in their parents footsteps. That is as true for kids in sweden as it is in China or the united states. Have highly educated parents? Much higher chance for those kids to get a high degree. The passing of skills, resources, time, money, attention, experiences, guidance has a lot to say.
So kids who grow in poor households don't get to have those advantages, and so their path is already set. If education then isn't free, if health care isn't free, then you are triple or quadruple fucked. Looking at this as a non-American I am fucking stunned that people can defend or accept a "worker harder / boot strap" response. There is a ton of sociological evidence that supports that to break out of these shackles for the masses, you need serious institutional support systems that allows people to break the cycles.
You're right. You cannot make people less racist. People have always hated their neighbors be it in the next village, next town, next country, next continent. There will always be this animosity and hatred for those who are not in your group, and this preys particularly on individuals who need to be in a flock have their biases validated. It's a big problem if those people are in a position to deny access to people who try to get a better a life.
Some people think those ideas is unrealistic to happen; nothing to do with the ideas themselves. To others think some of the ideas is a bad idea to begin with. For example a $15 minimum wage could negatively effect the economy as said by some economists. The idea is it that could hurt rural communities by losing lower wage jobs. Minorities with lower wage jobs can be the first to go and that it could be harder to newer jobs since now a new employee can cost more. I think liberals need to be careful because it might seem like a wonderful idea, in reality in can be harmful. Just because the idea is more progressive it doesn't mean it won't have problems. An example is that in Colorado arrest actually rose for minorities than it did for whites kids and in Colorado companies are having more drug tests.
Just adopting certain measures is no sure way of making things equal. It is best to study to see how these issue effects individuals.
User 463088
Banned
That's a question no human being has answered with anything other than no.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
He's gotten 15% in a few polls nationally.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/
He got 12% nationally in a Fox poll: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/2016-fox-news-poll-clinton-trump-gary-johnson/
Not that that's the best pollster, but the point is that there's definitely some sort of support for him currently even though nobody really talks about it. If he is getting these kind of numbers I don't see why he should be excluded from debates.
excelsiorlef
Member
Sounds great for a country of like a million... maybe and even then probably not.
But to run American like that LMAO
User 463088
Banned
He won't be if he's polling at 15% of the vote in the 5 national polls that the CPD has decided to use this year.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I don't think there's any demand for Gary Johnson news, but shouldn't the media bring up the fact that a guy that 1/8 of America is "supporting" for president wants to abolish the income tax and replace it with a 23% VAT? His economic plans make Cruz's plans seem reasonable.
Kite
Member
Not sure if already posted, but GOP Donor Meg Whitman Indicates She'll Likely Support Clinton.
Hillary can possibly pull lots of $$ and votes from the centrists and moderate Republicans.
Rojava has a similar model of communalism, and their population is around 4.5 million right now. Rojava was able to exist and create itself largely due to the chaos of the Syrian war, I think it would be extremely hard to create such drastic changes in US society with reform.
It's no fun nuking a dude who is already dead, gotta make him look viable first.
EDIT: Also, you gotta hit that daily deadline. You can get like a dozen articles building him up and then tearing him down. Always good for a slow news day.
He's an "anyone but" vote. Trump and Hillary both have high unfavorables, so people pick the next biggest name. If he starts doing well enough, they will actually learn who he is, and then they won't like him either.
God I hope they survive, but I just know that once the war finally ends whoever's running Syria is going to go after them.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Gary Johnson's ceiling is 2% nationally and that's being generous.
Macho Madness
Member
It's really easy to understand how 3rd parties are overpolled when you realize how much just a one percent swing in the electorate is.
Box of Kittens
Banned
West Virginia is an odd case where a closed primary actually increases crossover voting. It was once one of the most reliably Democratic states in the nation on the strength of the votes of union coal miners. It was one of six states to support Carter in 1980 (even Massachusetts voted Reagan that year) and one of ten to support Dukakis in 1988. As late as 1996 it gave Clinton a better margin than California did.
However, it's been voting increasingly Republican over the last 20 years, fueled by opposition to Democratic environmental and social policies. Since 2000 it has voted Republican in every presidential election by increasing margins. However, many of these Republican voters are still registered Democrats, either because they never bothered to change their registration or because they still vote Democratic down ballot. The state still has a Democratic governor and it took until 2014 for Republicans to capture the legislature. So you have a situation where nearly 40% of Sanders voters in the West Virginia primary said they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the general.
The table below illustrates how rapidly the state has been moving towards the Republicans. DNatl% is the Democratic presidential candidate's percentage of the national two-party vote (i.e. factoring out third party votes), DWV% is the Democratic presidential candidate's share of the two-party vote in West Virginia, and WVLean is the partisan lean of West Virginia for that election, i.e., it compares the Democratic vote share in West Virginia to the national vote share.
Code:
Year DNatl% DWV% WVLean
1988 46.10 52.38 D+6.3
1992 53.45 57.77 D+4.3
1996 54.74 58.35 D+3.6
2000 50.27 46.76 R+3.5
2004 48.76 43.52 R+5.2
2008 53.69 43.33 R+10.4
2012 51.96 36.33 R+15.6Note how West Virginia has leaned more Republican every cycle, and how there are particularly large jumps in 2000 (when Gore had a particular focus on the environment), 2008, and 2012 (when Obama was on the ballot).
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah, but that would reveal her to be a secret Republican all along!
Unlike Bernie, whose alleged appeal with independents and Republicans is just because he radiates good government and principles.
While this is true, it's still a really big deal for Johnson to poll this high, because the threshold for participating in presidential debates is 15%. He is not too far right now from being up there on the stage with Hillary and Trump.
Well also the first debate is in September, so Johnson would not only need to maintain his support in national polls for the next 3 months, he'd need to expand on it. That's after both parties pick their VPs, go through their conventions, and start campaigning across the country and saturating TV screens with ads.
All while Johnson does..............nothing.
All while Johnson does..............nothing.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
It would have been really interesting if the GOP had run the "regional candidates" strategy to try to send the presidency to the House. Mitt Romney in Utah, John Kasich in Ohio, Susan Collins in Maine, Grassley in Iowa, etc.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked