I'd be curious of what European demographic numbers are. One of the two coworkers I mentioned was actually from Wales. I asked him about Middle Eastern populations and basically said "Pakistanis are the good ones, unlike those____ ones." And stuff like that. Was curious to get a sense of what racial prejudices are like over there.
-
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
nature boy
Member
.
Abinash117
Member
The only comparison is the Muslim population. I don't think or know that if there is a fast emerging minority population in many places in Europe. Perhaps in Germany, UK, and France, but it is hard to know considering some European countries don't do their census by race, so you might have to find studies to know anything about the race and ethnic groups. Many European countries never had a large "native" minority population similar to the US, so any large increase in minority population is going to be boosted by immigrants and their children.
whyamihere
Banned
MULaw Poll (Likely Voters):
Wisconsin
Clinton: 46 (+9)
Trump: 37
Feingold: 51 (+9)
Johnson: 42
Wisconsin
Clinton: 46 (+9)
Trump: 37
Feingold: 51 (+9)
Johnson: 42
Yes.
The diversity is what's keeping us from having the dumpster fire that is Euro Right Wing politics engulf our country too.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
This is Wisconsin right?
No we're not. We hate you, Dump.
eBay Huckster
Member
There isn't anywhere else. Coincidentally if we did have a 28-30% minority population we would not be on the verge of Brexit right now. There's a big shoe to drop in Europe regarding race and most Europeans are in total denial about it. That's why the rest of the UK country feels so alien for a Londoner.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Johnson is toast. His and Kirk's in IL are the two seats I see as virtually a sure thing for the Dems to pick up.
I guess that 28% is what is left over of the SandersforPres hold outs.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Why the hell is herman cain trending on twitter?
Stumping for Trump, claiming he is not a racist.
Except for the Dem Primary; it's all proportional. Winning a state is a nice PR boost, but it comes down to the percentages. Until a full nomination is decided by 2-3%, it's meaningless
Aside: I also think caucuses are stupid. Takes way too much time.
It also allows the party to be more nimble and receptive to a potentially changing electorate, as well.
The issue is that the country is heavily trending towards people declaring as independent; so by forcing party registration, along current trends due to partisanship (which doesn't seem to be decreasing), you're going to have a smaller percentage of the the Democratic voting base dictating who the nominee is. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in 2016; to see how many of the Sanders voters who registered as Dem to vote in the primary - but I do not think they will account for any noticeable bump, and since independents leaning Dem are already inclined to vote for a Democrat more than weak registered democrats - I don't think it "brings people in" on a practical level.
The bragging about purity part is hella annoying, don't get me wrong. But that seems to be so far just a Sanders thing, and not something that has happened repeatedly.
Also, there are 19 states that don't have party registration IIRC. What do you about those folks?
I guess my overall point is that voters (both Dem and GOP, primarily GOP now) are moving towards designating themselves as independent due to the rancor and extreme partisanship currently in the country. This trend has only increased. I think that trying to force people to register in the party is going to be a futile effort as long as there are stronger forces moving people away towards party registration. If those trends keep continuing, you run the risk of turning your primary process into an echo chamber (the GOP has this problem in spades for years now). IIRC, the GOP has more closed primaries than the Dems, and I think that is why GOP nominees generally have to pander to their base more during the primary process.
The bedwetters comment is a reference to Plouffe's comments about Democrats in general, myself included.
But it is in reference to this weird belief that folks from the other side hijack open primaries, even though there has never been any statistically significant effects from it. I'm saying that people are knee-jerk reacting to the shooting without understanding what they're actually calling for. As much as people rightfully bitch about the NRA's power, a large reason the NRA has so much sway is because many gun owners rightfully believe that those trying to write gun control laws know nothing about guns, why they are used, and how to actually regulate them. The assault weapons ban, which was found by the DoJ to be patently useless, is one of those things. The entire discussion around gun control are two groups who don't understand each other in the slightest fighting for rules (and lack of rules) that make zero sense. FFS; the assault weapon ban literally let someone attach a GRENADE LAUNCHER to their assault rifle.
Is it hard to see why even moderate folks might be a little skeptical of "gun control" when it looks like that? On top of it, we pass the ban that does nothing, and then pat ourselves on the back and move on from the topic acting like we've accomplished something.
I think that the backlash to the partisanship rancor is a bigger factor in why folks want to stay independently registered. I think there is a difference between Obama picking up college kids in 08 and converting them to Democrats, versus getting them out to the polls. Young voters are pretty fickle, and even something as kind of dumb as "you have to register as a Democrat to vote in the primary" can turn them off to voting for the entire year. It might be dumb, but those are votes that we need. Plus, I'm not sure how many of those permanent Dem voters Obama created are actually registered as Democrat, tbh.
There's also the interesting distinction of even if they stay Dem, do they come out and vote. I think Clinton's only real concern is voter turnout, not % of people who actually want to vote for her. But AFAIK there are not many studies (there's only one we did in '08) about whether if someone came out and voted in the primary, whether they were more inclined to vote in the general election (logically it makes sense they would, since they are probably more politically engaged, but if you voted for Sanders '16 or Clinton '08, or Rubio '16 or Santorum '12 - were you more likely to come out and vote. That'd be an interesting piece of info if we could get more data points than just Clinton '08 voters. :/
I think you could maybe try with the lower capacity magazines, but horse might be out of the barn. I think the biggest issue is that people keep trying to replicate solutions from other countries that don't scale to the size of the US or the already incredibly prevalent gun culture / # of guns in the country. We know gun ownership % isn't quite the same as gun violence (Canada has a similar % of people who own guns IIRC); and 300 million people and 300 million active guns are different than what Europe and Australia were dealing with. I don't have an answer (if I did I would be much happier) - but I think you might need to make gun control part of a holistic answer that includes mental health (vast majority of gun deaths are suicide), regulations on gun manufacturers, and probably other factors - rather than just type of guns allowed, and probably need to include handguns in the mix rather than leaving them alone. Also, you need to engage the vast middle ground of gun owners as well and I think give them a chunk of ownership in crafting legislation.
Also, for chrissakes kill all the gun show loopholes. Ugh.
I guess I think that we need to look at it a completely new way rather than trying to use solutions that I don't think scale from other countries.
whyamihere
Banned
Yeah, sorry. Wisconsin.
gutter_trash
Banned
Unless the house and senate manages to flip in November, don't expect any kind of gun legislature being enacted on the federal level. You may get some local laws here and there, but nothing else. The NRA is going to pump so much money into keeping pro-gun legislatures in office this November.
If twenty children being killed in school doesn't get anything meaningful legislation, there's no way the death of 49 LGBT individuals will cause any meaningful blip on the legislative radar among Republicans.
If twenty children being killed in school doesn't get anything meaningful legislation, there's no way the death of 49 LGBT individuals will cause any meaningful blip on the legislative radar among Republicans.
WI was never a good state for Trump, but locking that up now is a good thing. Gives time to focus elsewhere. NV/FL/VA/WI already gets you across the line.
And that seeming negative polling response to Trump's post-Orlando actions gives me some faith in American voters. But I'm still somewhat skeptical.
And that seeming negative polling response to Trump's post-Orlando actions gives me some faith in American voters. But I'm still somewhat skeptical.
WI was never a good state for Trump, but locking that up now is a good thing. Gives time to focus elsewhere. NV/FL/VA/WI already gets you across the line.
I mean. There is no way VA goes dem but PA doesn't.
Unfortunately true. That look on Obama's face when he realized that even the mass slaughter of kids wasn't gonna get anything done was pretty hard to swallow.
Everythingisfine.jpeg
Seriously though, this ship is going down faster than the Titanic.
Retromelon
Member
Bobby Jindal at 45
Happy belated birthday bobbeh
So based on this, sounds like Sanders intends to end his campaign, but not Thursday, as they are still figuring out how best to do that
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
whyamihere
Banned
I don't think this is consistent with what we saw in the latest cycle. Obviously, many people invested in following the process understood the delegate math this time around. But...many people were also completely clueless about it and chose to ignore demographics and math to latch on to whatever W was available. In that context, and in one where a doomed campaign invested months of money and effort in tearing down the nominee, because, hey, maybe it'll work, even these types of small narrative wins have consequences.
Now, there is an extent to which I am making a mountain out of a mole hill here, because it is likely that Sanders would have stubbornly stuck around and his supporters would have convinced themselves they were winning CA regardless of what happened in MI. But I think it was a turning point in convincing the campaign to be more aggressive and a loss there would have made a big difference. In this case though I think the issue was more D's voting in the GOP primary so it's also not just matter of the democratic rules.
One important question is whether the trend towards registering as indie is exogenous and uncontrollable, or whether the parties can have have any influence on that. I get that political parties are increasingly uncool and that people like being independent to keep their street cred. Should the democratic party accept this and work around it? I can see that argument, but I also think there's a better one that people are best served by acknowledging that these parties are important institutions are can only be responsive to a changing electorate if the electorate shows up.
I don't expect to see a big boost from Bernie because it never seemed like he did a good job registering voters or paying attention to deadlines (much easier to complain about it after the fact). But Pigeon's question about turnout from the 2008 primary in later years is super interesting. I'd go write that paper myself if I didn't have 4 others I was trying to get out at the moment.
So I assume these are just effectively open primaries. That's cool. There's really no reason both can't exist.
Thanks for clarifying your comments here. I am not going to pretend to know a lot about gun control, and your point about the two cultures completely not understanding one another is well taken. That said, I also think you're giving people a lot of credit if you think the reason the assault weapons ban can't go anywhere in congress is because moderates stopped liking it after the DoJ found that it was ineffective.
I also think the last comment you made in that quote is a little too dismissive. I don't think people want to just pass an assault weapons ban, pat themselves on the back, and call it a day. A lot of what I see on this issue is just people being desperate and sad and trying to latch on to ANYTHING in the desperate hope of seeing some kind of progress. Obviously that's not the right way to go about public policy but in a world where we can't even have real studies on gun violence anymore it's not surprising that this is where we are.
Rubio is their white knight and they don't expect Trump to body him like he did last time? Come on.
This is a really good article about mass shootings and histories of violence:
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/14/11922576/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-gun-domestic-violence
Here are my feelings on gun control: mass shooters don't necessarily come out of nowhere. They generally have histories of anger, violence, substance abuse, family trouble, and very frequently domestic violence. The problem is that we don't consider those histories to be mental illness. That's just normalized as "being an asshole" as part of a culture of toxic masculinity until they go ahead and kill people.
Large-scale gun control seems very challenging given the constitutional requirements in America. But violent crime in general is ticking downward -- it's mass shootings that are ramping up. And it's already clearly constitutional to deprive specific people of access to guns. So although we probably can't ban guns in general, we can do our best to ban possession of guns by people who are likely to use them to commit mass shootings.
To start out, I think we should have a federal ban on gun possession or purchases for people who have a TRO, a restraining order, or a conviction for domestic violence. If we get the watchlist ban, we should just add these people to the watchlist, since we know from data that they are actually very likely to be violent dangers to others. I'd seek to expand this ban over time to other specific groups of people with histories of violent behavior. I think this is a policy that has constitutional backing, might actually be achievable, and might actually have an impact on mass shootings in America.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/14/11922576/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-gun-domestic-violence
Here are my feelings on gun control: mass shooters don't necessarily come out of nowhere. They generally have histories of anger, violence, substance abuse, family trouble, and very frequently domestic violence. The problem is that we don't consider those histories to be mental illness. That's just normalized as "being an asshole" as part of a culture of toxic masculinity until they go ahead and kill people.
Large-scale gun control seems very challenging given the constitutional requirements in America. But violent crime in general is ticking downward -- it's mass shootings that are ramping up. And it's already clearly constitutional to deprive specific people of access to guns. So although we probably can't ban guns in general, we can do our best to ban possession of guns by people who are likely to use them to commit mass shootings.
To start out, I think we should have a federal ban on gun possession or purchases for people who have a TRO, a restraining order, or a conviction for domestic violence. If we get the watchlist ban, we should just add these people to the watchlist, since we know from data that they are actually very likely to be violent dangers to others. I'd seek to expand this ban over time to other specific groups of people with histories of violent behavior. I think this is a policy that has constitutional backing, might actually be achievable, and might actually have an impact on mass shootings in America.
whyamihere
Banned
I hope that they just air ads quoting Rubio's hatred for the Senate all fall.
NihonTiger90
Member
For his Senate seat, not president. Jolly was running for the Senate seat Rubio was going to vacate.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Hillary is already for both of these, so what exactly does he want? Besides, her plans for global warming are a hell of a lot more aggressive than Bernie's insane anti-nuclear nonsense which would just make global warming worse.
What more could he want from the person who took a political hit because she said coal was a dying market?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Jesus Christ. Go fuck yourself Bernie. I'm so fucking sick of this shit.
whyamihere
Banned
It's probably because he genuinely doesn't trust Clinton on maybe anything.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Ted Cruz is the guy who would have to be selected if they did a coup in Cleveland, but a coup will never happen.
The statement "research on gun violence doesn't suggest this" reminds me that ending the ban on the ability for the government to research gun violence would be a big step forward as well. More data could help us further understand the effects of toxic masculinity or whatever causes aggression that leads people to kill.
Has there *ever* been a shooting (outside of a clueless kid who didn't realize what they were doing) by someone who had no history of aggression or violence? I guess it's possible, but it does seem like a lot of these recent mass shootings did have domestic violence connections.
I have no idea what to do about the problem of many domestic violence incidents not being reported, it's a similar problem to unreported rapes where the victim is scared or doesn't know what to do. But at least for the ones that are reported, we definitely need to ramp up restrictions on gun possession and purchasing for the abuser.
Another idea that might help combined with mandatory background checks and a database on domestic abusers would be to actually close the "gun show loophole". We need accountability on gun sales and it's just not reasonable to allow people to sell guns mindlessly to people who may be dangerous.
NihonTiger90
Member
Alright, so we can all calm down, since no one read my last post:
RUBIO
IS
NOT
RUNNING
FOR
PRESIDENT
AGAIN
This pertains to his Senate seat. He is going to run for it instead of David Jolly, who is now looking at running for his current House seat against Charlie Crist.
RUBIO
IS
NOT
RUNNING
FOR
PRESIDENT
AGAIN
This pertains to his Senate seat. He is going to run for it instead of David Jolly, who is now looking at running for his current House seat against Charlie Crist.
User 463088
Banned
Those Trump favorable/unfavorables....ya. That's...uh.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
Sorry. Sorry.
Bwhahahaaha. Good job GOP. GOOD JOB.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
Sorry. Sorry.
Bwhahahaaha. Good job GOP. GOOD JOB.
One of the things I'm worried about in November if Hillary wins is a repeat of what happened in 2008, where a bunch of (almost entirely white) journalists and politicians declaring that racism and bigotry have been forever defeated and the country settles back into a mindset of happy self-satisfaction that everything is fine and there is no need to take any action to tackle the continuing issues of race in America.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked