• 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 |OT8| No, Donald. You don't.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also,
Warren brings media eyeballs in a way that Kaine or Pence never can achieve. Any speech she made would be covered live on cable, or reshown dozens of times throughout the day. People would share her attack speeches widely on social media. She would be an incredibly desirable interview. She would be the biggest story of the campaign for a solid month or two and that's a good thing if she can convey an effective message while reporters and cameras rush towards her. She's just infectious to cover.
I feel this is kinda glorifying the position of VP candidate a bit and just how much extra attention it really garners a person compared to other surrogates and supporters, especially in this era of 24/7 news and social media and complete and total coverage. Warren can and will be giving those speeches regardless of whether she's VP or not (and if anything, her speeches will be stronger if she's not selected because she'll have to worry less about the stuff she's saying negatively reflecting on Hillary since she won't be officially connected to the campaign, whereas she would no doubt be kept on at least something of a leash if she were selected).

News media, Twitter, Facebook, etc, will give all kinds of coverage to her speeches regardless of whether she's selected since that's just how media works today in that everything gets covered to fill airtime, and this is compounded in Trump's case since he will no doubt be unable to resist going after Warren whenever she does that since she just gets under his skin like nothing else, and the fact that she's able to do that as a Senator in of itself proves that she doesn't need to be the VP to continue to do it.

Warren will give speeches in support of Hillary and attacking Trump all over the place.
They will get under Trump's skin and he will be unable to resit responding to "Pocahontas" because that's who he is.
If the media didn't cover Warren's speeches for their own sake to fill air time they will because of Trump's response.
This will happen. It's not an if or could or might. It will.

None of this changes regardless of whether she's VP or not. That will all play out the same way, and thus is not a point in her favor as VP (if anything against it since she will have to be more careful if anything if she is the VP) and thus I do not understand this reasoning for her being the VP since that will play out more-or less the same way regardless of whether she's chosen or not. Yes, she'll get even more attention if she's the VP, but not really significantly since Trump will drag it into either way.

Warren is wonderful, and I'd be overjoyed if she somehow does wind up being the pick and we have a two-women ticket and we not only shatter the glass ceiling but totally obliterate it in the process, but this really isn't a point actually in favor of her as far as I can see it as that much should more or less play out the same regardless.
 

Grief.exe

Member
I still can't get over Christie. He endorses Trump after crashing and burning his own campaign, he loses the veepstakes which he clearly wanted (so much so that personally groveled for it), he gives a loud and angry speech at the RNC thinking his only future is as Trump's attorney general, then watches as Cruz shows real balls and makes a future for himself in the post-Trump GOP that Christie didn't even imagine was possible. Damn.

At least with Ted Cruz, he is guaranteed reelection in radical right wing Texas. Christie is going to be voted out anyways in New Jersey, Trump is his only option.

It's so odd to picture Kasich being aggressive about anything, let alone slapping a tape recorder out of someone's hand hehe

I still can't believe Trump and company think it's good strategy to repeatedly attack him, considering his state. This is one profoundly stupid campaign.

There's an angry man underneath that exterior.
 
It's so odd to picture Kasich being aggressive about anything, let alone slapping a tape recorder out of someone's hand hehe

I still can't believe Trump and company think it's good strategy to repeatedly attack him, considering his state. This is one profoundly stupid campaign.

Which is why his temper would ruin him. One outburst and his entire image is destroyed.

And he would have an outburst. Hillary would figure out how to rustle him enough to get him to snap at some point. It was brewing in the primaries, but it never got a chance to unleash.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
It's not really angry white people. It's angry uneducated white people. Trump will likely lose college educated voters.
 

dramatis

Member
aYA3af0m.jpg


https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/756396645886128128
Can you imagine what the Latino networks are like right now
 
Kasich looks like a saint next to Trump. He would have been extremely tough to beat.
Really, I'm... not sure about that. I mean, outside of Ohio and a few exceptions he was the number FOUR candidate in the race. Not second. Not third. Fourth. I mean, even here in Michigan, a place he was expected to do at least somewhat well, he came in third behind Ted Cruz of all people.

I think what Kasich is, is basically Jeb Bush without the baggage of the Bush family name. And that might just be something that might not have widespread appeal at all at this point, given the results we got. Maybe it's not the Bush family's name that's their problem at this point. Maybe America just flat-out doesn't want another such type of candidate, period, right now.

To be sure, this is in large part because there were simply too many faces and names on the stage and someone was going to get drowned out and that person was largely Kasich. He didn't get much time to speak during the debates and got largely drowned out so he didn't really have the airtime to make a name for him.

But at the same time, I mean... Cruz did. Rubio kind of sorta did for a bit there. Kasich just totally failed to get anything at all, and maybe that's not just because of two many cooks but him not being what people want at all.

Of course, on top of that, you also have primary vs. general election dynamics (just because Kasich wasn't able to appeal with a primary audience doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been able to appeal with a general election, especially if he was able to get his own message out there better and wasn't drowned out by any one else). But I just... don't know. In hindsight, maybe he really was just the Republicans' O'Malley, who was never going to go anywhere, and not someone to have really worried about after all and would have turned out to just be a nothingburger. I dunno.
 

Diablos

Member
Kasich would have done great with independents and possibly some Dems tho. He bombed because of primary voters not caring, but if he won by some chance they would have still turned out for him in the GE
 

thebloo

Member
What do you think the race would look like right now if it were Jeb, Cruz, or little Marco?

It would have been a very different primary on both sides. Maybe Hillary would have even lost to Bernie, since Trump coalesced her base out of fear.

On the other hand, Trump absolutely destroyed these guys. Jeb would have never escaped his last name, Cruz is unlikable. I think she would have been neck at neck with Rubio and he could have won, barring some software failures.

I don't really know how people can prop up Kasich and in the same breath dismiss Kaine. Kasich is the most boring person in the world.
 

Kusagari

Member
Really, I'm... not sure about that. I mean, outside of Ohio and a few exceptions he was the number FOUR candidate in the race. Not second. Not third. Fourth. I mean, even here in Michigan, a place he was expected to do at least somewhat well, he came in third behind Ted Cruz of all people.

I think what Kasich is, is basically Jeb Bush without the baggage of the Bush family name. And that might just be something that might not have widespread appeal at all at this point, given the results we got. Maybe it's not the Bush family's name that's their problem at this point. Maybe America just flat-out doesn't want another such type of candidate, period, right now.

To be sure, this is in large part because there were simply too many faces and names on the stage and someone was going to get drowned out and that person was largely Kasich. He didn't get much time to speak during the debates and got largely drowned out so he didn't really have the airtime to make a name for him.

But at the same time, I mean... Cruz did. Rubio kind of sorta did for a bit there. Kasich just totally failed to get anything at all, and maybe that's not just because of two many cooks but him not being what people want at all.

Of course, on top of that, you also have primary vs. general election dynamics (just because Kasich wasn't able to appeal with a primary audience doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been able to appeal with a general election, especially if he was able to get his own message out there better and wasn't drowned out by any one else). But I just... don't know. In hindsight, maybe he really was just the Republicans' O'Malley, who was never going to go anywhere, and not someone to have really worried about after all and would have turned out to just be a nothingburger. I dunno.

Kaisch regularly trounced Hillary in general election polling. You're right that he was Jeb without the baggage, which is exactly why he was so dangerous. The majority of the Republican electorate might hate Republicans like Kasich, Jeb and Romney these days but they would most definitely show up to vote for them against Hillary.

Kasich had the same appeal that George W. Bush did, except he sounds way more eloquent saying it, by trying to appeal to people with compassionate conservatism. You can see, on this forum alone, how many Independents/Democrats it fooled despite his record showing the opposite.
 

gcubed

Member
You guys do realize that the fact you think Kasich is a strong competitor and should have won is exactly why he didn't?

I think it's hilarious that every election liberals panic over the one guy that's the closest to a liberal in the GOP field, and then think he's going to win.

EVERY. TIME.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
You guys do realize that the fact you think Kasich is a strong competitor and should have won is exactly why he didn't?

I think it's hilarious that every election liberals panic over the one guy that's the closest to a liberal in the GOP field, and then think he's going to win.

EVERY. TIME.

Bingo. He was this round's Jon Huntsman. Guys that will never get the nomination because the average GOP voter is too far right.
 

Loudninja

Member
You guys do realize that the fact you think Kasich is a strong competitor and should have won is exactly why he didn't?

I think it's hilarious that every election liberals panic over the one guy that's the closest to a liberal in the GOP field, and then think he's going to win.

EVERY. TIME.
Right?
 

HylianTom

Banned
This thread would be a wasteland of salt and tears
Yeah, there's a reason I so verrrrrrrry badly wanted Trump as nominee. Each of those guys has flaws, but none of them have the remarkably poisonous aura that Trump carries. Trump's antics/reputation/rhetoric from the past year is probably costing him a few points of difference from where they'd all be.

When Hillary crosses 270, the first check on her Thank You list needs to towards insane GOP primary voters.
 

Kusagari

Member
You guys do realize that the fact you think Kasich is a strong competitor and should have won is exactly why he didn't?

I think it's hilarious that every election liberals panic over the one guy that's the closest to a liberal in the GOP field, and then think he's going to win.

EVERY. TIME.

Except that I think a McCain/Romney probably wins this cycle. The hatred for Hillary is a very real thing. Her ratings are complete shit compared to Romney's during 2012.

We didn't need to be scared of a Huntsman. All we needed was a Romney. Luckily we ended up with Trump.
 

watershed

Banned
Yeah, there's a reason I so verrrrrrrry badly wanted Trump as nominee. Each of those guys has flaws, but none of them have the remarkably poisonous aura that Trump carries. Trump's antics/reputation/rhetoric from the past year is probably costing him a few points of difference from where they'd all be.

When Hillary crosses 270, the first check on her Thank You list needs to towards insane GOP primary voters.
Don't be so overconfident! Anayway, I think Hillary could have beat any of the Republicans from this cycle but it does seem like Trump is making it easier...I hope.
 
Except that I think a McCain/Romney probably wins this cycle. The hatred for Hillary is a very real thing. Her ratings are complete shit compared to Romney's during 2012.

We didn't need to be scared of a Huntsman. All we needed was a Romney. Luckily we ended up with Trump.

You're taking the voter pool of 2012 and applying it to the 2016 election. Trump wouldn't have won the nomination four years ago. His nomination is a response to the further radicalization of the GOP voter base. Its why Romney and Ryan are far less popular than they were four years ago:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...wouldnt-be-gop-salvation-against-clinton.html
 

HylianTom

Banned
Don't be so overconfident! Anayway, I think Hillary could have beat any of the Republicans from this cycle but it does seem like Trump is making it easier...I hope.
I can't ever truly feel overconfident. I'll feel good on a theoretical level, but won't truly relax until that moment.

(And I'm putting my nervous energy to work: just informed my boss that I'm taking the week before the election off to go to Florida.)
 

thebloo

Member
I really don't fully understand the constant minimization of Hillary's strength on this forum. This is a person that won every race she's ever been a part of (I'm including Bill here), except one, against a once in a lifetime Barack Obama.

I'm not saying she would beat everyone out there, but she wouldn't be 5 down against anyone the GOP actually elects.
 
Cruz would be landslide because he is still too far right, and frankly unlikeable. Jeb is too goofy for prime time. Rubio I saw as a legit threat, he is lazy in power but speaks well enough and was looking to bring in Hispanic voters, he had the legit chance to grow and transition the GOP. Kasich was small time and I really don't get the lauding of him, he had a bad temper and under scrutiny would melt.
 
Hmm, seeing that the media (other than Trump-lackies like Lewandowski and co and well lol Morning Joe) seem to be in general agreement that Trump's speech was a total trainwreck that didn't do the things it should have, I wonder if Hillary really will announce her pick today or if she's going to decide to just let that fester and take up the entire news cycle. I want it to be today because I just really, really want to know of course and have it out in the open already (even if it's Kaine, which it probably will be) but it feels like it might be the better play here to wait with how it went. Going to be interesting to see how Hillary feels about just how badly it went herself based on what she decides.
 
There are versions of all the GOP candidates that Hillary could lose to; however, none of them showed up in the primaries. She would likely beat smarmy lizard Cruz, wimpy turtle Jeb, glitching robot Rubio, and charisma black hole Kasich.
 

Kusagari

Member
You're taking the voter pool of 2012 and applying it to the 2016 election. Trump wouldn't have won the nomination four years ago. His nomination is a response to the further radicalization of the GOP voter base. Its why Romney and Ryan are far less popular than they were four years ago:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...wouldnt-be-gop-salvation-against-clinton.html

Herman fucking Cain was leading Romney for 2 months. I do not think you can unequivocally say Trump wouldn't have won 2012.

Romney and Ryan's numbers tanked this year because the Trump base dislikes them for constantly shitting on him. That's the only reason. I doubt their numbers move much at all without him as a factor.
 
I really don't fully understand the constant minimization of Hillary's strength on this forum. This is a person that won every race she's ever been a part of (I'm including Bill here), except one, against a once in a lifetime Barack Obama.

I'm not saying she would beat everyone out there, but she wouldn't be 5 down against anyone the GOP actually elects.

Her favorable numbers are not that good, the good thing is she is going against Trump who has it worse.

Trump has a singular strategy. Appeal to the white voters. The whole convention was focused on making white America feel like Democrats and especially Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama don't care about them. That they are fine if not cheerful of white military members, police officials being killed. It is awful, but Trump's path to victory is scaring America of "the other" and hoping that translates into winning white voters by an overwhelming majority.

The analysis done by Nate Cohn shows that Obama won a larger percentage of the white vote than exit polls showed in 2012. The whole analysis done by them shows that the Nixon White Strategy can still be viable only the margins Trump would have to post are really high. Hillary will have an easier time in Florida, maybe even NC than Ohio, Iowa and maybe even PA.

IMO, Hillary needs to appeal to the Obama coalition. Kaine doesn't do that. When your unfavorable numbers are so high pick a VP that will be well liked by the people whose support you need.

Edit: Whether Trump speech works or not, I have no idea. Hopefully not. But I do think he is following and going towards the only strategy/path he has to win nomination.
 

thefro

Member
Hmm, seeing that the media (other than Trump-lackies like Lewandowski and co and well lol Morning Joe) seem to be in general agreement that Trump's speech was a total trainwreck that didn't do the things it should have, I wonder if Hillary really will announce her pick today or if she's going to decide to just let that fester and take up the entire news cycle. I want it to be today because I just really, really want to know of course and have it out in the open already (even if it's Kaine, which it probably will be) but it feels like it might be the better play here to wait with how it went. Going to be interesting to see how Hillary feels about just how badly it went herself based on what she decides.

Probably best to stick to the plan and roll it out this afternoon. Not much time left in the news cycle before the DNC.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
After the tumult of this week, the DNC is going to be pretty boring.

And this bothers me. Democrats don't play politics enough. I feel like they spend so much time trying to take the "high ground," but this is politics and it feels like they ignore the common, less educated voters, of which there are many.
 
Probably best to stick to the plan and roll it out this afternoon. Not much time left in the news cycle before the DNC.
Yeah, that's the other side of it. Announcing it tomorrow basically would be very heavily risking a repeat of the terrible rollout of Pence and that's not something Clinton would want, so she probably will be announcing it today if for no other reason than she really just doesn't have the time not to. There's no way Clinton would want to snub whoever she's chosen like that just to rub it in to Trump. If she had an extra day though, it would no doubt be very, very tempting. Hillary had to have slept very well last night, after listening to that performance.
 

teiresias

Member
How close to the DNC was Biden announced? I mean, this cycle is so compressed there's really no time to do a "tour" with Hillary and the VP prior to the convention like I think has been somewhat customary most of the time in presidential cycles. It just feels like they probably should have pushed the VP process a bit so that they were able to introduce whoever it is to the wider electorate prior to the convention.
 
How close to the DNC was Biden announced? I mean, this cycle is so compressed there's really no time to do a "tour" with Hillary and the VP prior to the convention like I think has been somewhat customary most of the time in presidential cycles. It just feels like they probably should have pushed the VP process a bit so that they were able to introduce whoever it is to the wider electorate prior to the convention.
It was like 3 days before. Also the DNC went first in 08.
 

thefro

Member
How close to the DNC was Biden announced? I mean, this cycle is so compressed there's really no time to do a "tour" with Hillary and the VP prior to the convention like I think has been somewhat customary most of the time in presidential cycles. It just feels like they probably should have pushed the VP process a bit so that they were able to introduce whoever it is to the wider electorate prior to the convention.

For whatever reason they have the conventions before the Olympics this year instead of after them. This is around the typical time for VP announcements for both parties.
 
I really don't fully understand the constant minimization of Hillary's strength on this forum. This is a person that won every race she's ever been a part of (I'm including Bill here), except one, against a once in a lifetime Barack Obama.

I'm not saying she would beat everyone out there, but she wouldn't be 5 down against anyone the GOP actually elects.

She had a terrible news cycle, with the whole FBI into Senate Hearing into RNC convention. Her polls were gonna take a beating, especially cause she hasn't had any major appearances since she clinched the nom.

I have a feeling that a lot of Trump's "outreach" yesterday will not be effective, because it was all lip service. He literally just dropped a mention, didn't say anything substantive about it then moved on.

The reason for it, is that the GOP approach is the old 'a rising tide lifts all boats.' If you listen closely, there's nothing specifically for minority groups in the proposals. It's basically "we're gonna do wonderful things for white people and in the process, you guys will benefit too." With no regard for specific 'subgroup' (to borrow a term) needs.

They really believe it too. They think that by not proposing group-specific needs, they're being color-blind and not even close to racist. That's why Jeffrey Lord et al are always harping about how Democrats like to 'divide' people for proposing specific policies targeted at minorities. It's honestly, also what hurt Bernie Sanders in the primary. He didn't get that solutions aren't one size fit all, and as much as they'd like to be color blind and treat everyone the same, we know that's not the case.
 

Grief.exe

Member
Paul Ryan is the scariest Republican potential candidate. He is a con man who knows how to sell the con, has solid favorable numbers, and is good looking/well-spoken.
Literally none of those descriptors apply to Trump.
 

Farmboy

Member
Don't be so overconfident! Anayway, I think Hillary could have beat any of the Republicans from this cycle but it does seem like Trump is making it easier...I hope.

I agree. The dynamics would have been different with Priorities USA in particular running more 'opponent defining' ads earlier, but the Clinton campaign would have adapted. Obviously it would have been closer and she may even have trailed until the DNC or even the debates, but Rubio is not an impressive candidate at all and the rest are weaker still.

Trump is particularly bad though, obviously.

And this bothers me. Democrats don't play politics enough. I feel like they spend so much time trying to take the "high ground," but this is politics and it feels like they ignore the common, less educated voters, of which there are many.

Boring is pretty good though. I bet the GOP would have preferred boring.

Confession: I've watched Bill Clinton's 2012 convention speech at least once a year since then, and as wonky as it is, it always makes me teary-eyed: the big dog going to bat for Obama, giving one of his best speeches ever. Imagine him topping it next week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom