• 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.

sangreal

Member
politico has a piece up with Bernie delegates blaming Bernie for the chaos....

Mess!

But it was also the result of some dumbfounded delegates who went into the convention thinking Clinton didn’t have the nomination sewn up, and that there was still a path for Sanders.

The first day proved to be a rude reality check.

“The Sanders campaign was doing an excellent job on negotiating on the platform and the shape of the convention, but it could have been a lot better in preparing the delegates,” said Daraka Larimore-Hall, a Sanders delegate from California. “People had all kinds of misunderstandings of what to expect at the convention.”

sounds about right

the whole article makes my head hurt

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/bernie-sanders-delegates-dnc-chaos-226456
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
I mean, I don't doubt that Russian politicians can be just as stupid as ours, I just assumed that the military and people calling the shots would be non-stupid. It's funny though because I know a Russian guy who is convinced that Pokemon Go is a front for a CIA developed intelligence gathering project.
Or they're betting enough of the American public won't care about the source of any juicy leaks. That nothing substantial will ever be done in retaliation and Trump's horde will just gobble shit up and vote against Hillary.
 

hawk2025

Member
Oh, please.

Bernie endorsed in no uncertain terms long before the convention.

Did these people have their heads in the sand or something? No excuses to busters.
 
I would imagine state-sponsored hacking is going on all the time but it's just dealt with behind the scenes because it's primarily relegated to actual intelligence gathering as opposed to digging up gossipy emails.

That's the one thing I don't quite understand about all this which is motive. Surely the Russians didn't think they could hack and leak these materials without getting caught? Furthermore, after hacking them and seeing the content, surely they didn't think releasing it would have a meaningful impact on the election? It just seems very stupid on multiple levels.
Kompromat.

Look that word up. It's a Russian tactic of obtaining information on it's opponents and blackmail them or destroy their careers. They buy the data and publish it in order to achieve their goals. This strategy doesn't need to publish sordid details, such as porn preferences or sexually charged emails. Just selectively releasing information in DNC's case led to the ouster of DWS.

Now they might have some dirt on Clinton's top brass too, which is kinda alarming since she's set to become the next President. That's also one of the angles FBI is looking at. I think they got all this data, and sold it to wikileaks for a nice sum. If they do get caught, Obama isn't gonna declare war or anything. They will just use plausible deniability over and over. But they got paydirt now, so it's worth it.
 

Geg

Member
Oh, please.

Bernie endorsed in no uncertain terms long before the convention.

Did these people have their heads in the sand or something? No excuses to busters.
Thinking about it like that I think it takes a little bit of the blame for not properly educating his delegates off of Bernie; he most likely reasonably assumed there was no need to tell them he wasn't going to be the nominee
 
SO MUCH FUCKING COCAINE:

CokFMxMXEAQJb4U.jpg
 

Effect

Member
Ugh. Not even one day and some of the anxiety returns in regard to hacks. Ugh. Can't I have just one damn day. :(

In other news WTF is up with Trump?
 

TopDreg

Member
I was just thinking about how this is the perfect year that Hillary could have won the presidential nomination. Not 2008, but now. Eight years ago, the Republican Party still had an effective enough leadership to stress their commitment to patriotic values and American exceptionalism. Hillary is just seemingly hawkish enough to appear genuine in seizing the opportunity to label the Democrat party as the patriot's party, and still keep to her core values and champion progressive values.

I don't condone war unless all other meaningful options have been exhausted, but this is fantastic. I'm still in awe that we have become the party of everyone. Excluding bigots and the uncompromising, of course.
 
I was just thinking about how this is the perfect year that Hillary could have won the presidential nomination. Not 2008, but now. Eight years ago, the Republican Party still had an effective enough leadership to stress their commitment to patriotic values and American exceptionalism. Hillary is just hawkish enough to seem genuine in seizing the opportunity to label the Democrat party as the patriot's party.

I don't condone war unless all other meaningful options have been exhausted, but this is fantastic. I'm still in awe that we have become the party of everyone. Excluding bigots and the uncompromising, of course.

Hillary would have had a much easier time of it in 2008 when she her favorability was higher and the historic nature of her candidacy would have shone brighter. I actually wonder if we would have been better off if we had switched Hillary and Obama's time of nomination.
 

Boke1879

Member
Trump said he's going to be "no more Mr. Nice Guy"...

It's only a matter of time before he comes apart at the seams completely.

The DNC must have really did him in. All those people mentioning him by name. I really can't wait for the debates. If this rally is any indication of anything. He really doesn't know shit.
 

Ophelion

Member
I was just thinking about how this is the perfect year that Hillary could have won the presidential nomination. Not 2008, but now. Eight years ago, the Republican Party still had an effective enough leadership to stress their commitment to patriotic values and American exceptionalism. Hillary is just hawkish enough to seem genuine in seizing the opportunity to label the Democrat party as the patriot's party, and still keep to her core values and champion progressive values.

I don't condone war unless all other meaningful options have been exhausted, but this is fantastic. I'm still in awe that we have become the party of everyone. Excluding bigots and the uncompromising, of course.

Well, at least this election cycle. It's yet to be seen if the Clintons can make it permanent to any great degree. Without a cartoon villain like Donald Trump, could we possibly unite so many disparate groups and hold them together? I don't know...
 

Kemal86

Member
I want to see Donald call Clinton a bitch on live TV during the debates

I've been trying to play out in my head how this would actually go.

Does Hillary walk out? Does the moderator end the debate? Does the moderator kick Trump out and Hillary stays and just answers questions? Is it awkward as fuck and just gets glossed over?
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Donald basically agreed that we should lock Hillary up, and then said the gloves are off and "no more mister nice guy".

He's got an anger management problem you wouldn't believe.
 

pigeon

Banned
I've been trying to play out in my head how this would actually go.

Does Hillary walk out? Does the moderator end the debate? Does the moderator kick Trump out and Hillary stays and just answers questions? Is it awkward as fuck and just gets glossed over?

They'd just keep going. Probably there would be boos from the audience.

Not sure whether Clinton would keep a straight face or laugh, probably need to focus test it.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I've been trying to play out in my head how this would actually go.

Does Hillary walk out? Does the moderator end the debate? Does the moderator kick Trump out and Hillary stays and just answers questions? Is it awkward as fuck and just gets glossed over?

This. Murmurs/boos from the crowd aside from a few republicans who cheer.
 
Brandon Rittiman ‏@BrandonRittiman 29m29 minutes ago Colorado Springs, CO
NEW: @realDonaldTrump tells #9NEWS Bernie "sold out to the Devil," looks like he's "in a state of major depression."

Not cool.

Kenneth P. Vogel ‏@kenvogel 1h1 hour ago
SCOOP: Charles Koch rejects efforts to set up meeting w/ Trump, even though both are in Colorado Springs right now.

Ponny up the money, Donald.
 

TopDreg

Member
Hillary would have had a much easier time of it in 2008 when she her favorability was higher and the historic nature of her candidacy would have shone brighter. I actually wonder if we would have been better off if we had switched Hillary and Obama's time of nomination.

Really? Hillary would have likely ran against John McCain, which would have made getting the American exceptionalism label attached to other Democrat values nearly impossible. Obama was an outspoken critic of the Iraq War. Trump would have had an easier time keeping the patriotic talking point.

Edit: Perhaps I should clarify that I meant it's good for the Democrat Party, not Hillary, to have been nominated this year instead of in 2008.
 
I wonder if Manafort has bitten off more than he can swallow with this hack.

There will be serious investigations into them. If he's linked to it, he better hope he's covered his tracks.
 

TopDreg

Member
Well, at least this election cycle. It's yet to be seen if the Clintons can make it permanent to any great degree. Without a cartoon villain like Donald Trump, could we possibly unite so many disparate groups and hold them together? I don't know...

Small steps. I hope so.
 
Really? Hillary would have likely ran against John McCain, which would have made getting the American exceptionalism label attached to other Democrat values nearly impossible. Obama was an outspoken critic of the Iraq War. Trump would have had an easier time keeping the patriotic talking point.

Edit: Perhaps I should clarify that I meant it's good for the Democrat Party, not Hillary, to have been nominated this year instead of in 2008.

First we need to see if this sticks. The DNC went off well, but that doesn't mean that the voters have already bought into the Democratic party as being the party of patriotic values and American exceptionalism. For all we know the polls could still be close.
 

Gotchaye

Member
...In all seriousness walking away from the table from a centrist is the only leverage the far left has in electoral politics, and I can't shake the suspicion that pledging to remove it from consideration is something like unilateral disarmament. It's not about purity, it's about getting results eight, twenty years down the road.

Republicans get this, which is why their far right wing has more clout in the party. For all the excoriation of Nader voters post-2000, there's been no left-wing third party candidacy as successful as Perot or Buchanan. The margin of victory in Florida was 500 votes; any number of things, most notably improved turnout could have swayed it one way or the other, but Perot really did sink Bush's bid for re-election, and the Republicans were much less nasty to his supporters than dems are to the Bernie or Busters. And now that the party has offered up a candidate that's unacceptable to conservative ideologues, business interests, and neoconservatives, there's a horde of NeverTrumpers that are willing to sacrifice a single election to tell the party that their Jacksonian wing can die in a fire, even if it means electing someone as loathsome as Clinton. Romney might endorse Johnson FFS. And like, this election is the Republican's to lose; it's a tossup on the fundamentals, but the Democrats decided to nominate someone with worse favorability ratings than Walter Mondale or Barry goddamn Goldwater. But if Clinton does get elected, the Republicans are going to put the blame squarely where it belongs: on a nominee that was unacceptable to wide swathes of the electorate. One can hope that the Republicans won't make the same mistake again. And that the Democrats won't, either.

I don't think the first part of this is at all right.

Fringe voters refusing to vote for a candidate closer to them who is not as close to them as they'd like gives the party some reason to move closer to them, but it also gives the party reason to move farther from them so as to pick up more votes in the center. If there are more voters in the center than on the fringes it seems likely to backfire. It's workable only if the fringe voters are extraordinarily well-organized and can credibly promise to deliver a large number of votes in return for a small move towards their position.

Similarly, the right wing of the Republican Party has more clout not because Republicans are scared of them not turning out in general elections but because they do turn out - in primaries. Like, if young people had turned out at just the same rate as older people the Clinton/Sanders race would have been a lot closer, and obviously if Sanders had won the Democrats would be somewhat to the left of where they are now. If Democratic Congressmen were scared of primary challenges they'd be more liberal.

To be clear, withholding votes in the general is a perfectly reasonable strategy for people like the NeverTrumpers. Romney would genuinely prefer that Clinton be president. He wants the Republican Party to have to nominate someone who is more like Clinton than Trump is in order to win. Centrists can enforce centrism by throwing the election to the other guy if their own looks too extreme (not that Romney is a centrist, and of course Trump's extremity isn't just about a left/right axis). That creates good incentives (from their perspective) for both parties. But people on the fringe who do this are almost always just giving both parties a reason to move away from them - they're just saying "don't count us when you're determining where the median voter is".
 

sangreal

Member
Oh, please.

Bernie endorsed in no uncertain terms long before the convention.

Did these people have their heads in the sand or something? No excuses to busters.

They have a response for that:
Beside the lack of direct communication, Sanders had also sown confusion publicly.

Even after he formally endorsed Clinton on July 12, his campaign said Sanders was still a candidate – providing further hope to his supporters that the dream of a Sanders presidency was still alive.

They see signals in everything he does. We saw this the other day too, when they were saying "This is what Bernie wanted" in response to questions about their walkout.

Laurie Cestnick, the founder of Occupy DNC Convention, a group with more than 33,000 Facebook likes that held dozens of protests during the convention, said her members refused to accept Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton.

“He was forced. Did you see his face last night when she was thanking Bernie supporters and asking them to come over?” she said, referring to Sanders’ visible grimace when mentioned by Clinton in her acceptance speech. “His face looked like someone who was beaten.”

These people are delusional, so I'm not sure how fair it is to lay it at Bernie's feet, but he doesn't help matters when he releases post-endorsement statements affirming his supporters belief that the DNC rigged the election
 

A line that would fit in a modern day re-make of Dr. Strangelove.


Trump keeps calling out Bernie. Like, he's begging Bernie to go on a major campaign trail spiel for Hillary.

If anything, Trump should have kept quiet on Bernie and allowed him to go away quietly. Now he's going to be fighting for Hillary harder IMO.

Telling Bernie he "sold out to the devil" is not how you do this.

Part of me is glad Trump is a know-nothing buffoon, but at the same time he's still going to get 40%+ of the vote which means our country is almost okay with a know-nothing buffoon running things as long as they're "their guy."

ughhhh
 

pigeon

Banned
A line that would fit in a modern day re-make of Dr. Strangelove.


Trump keeps calling out Bernie. Like, he's begging Bernie to go on a major campaign trail spiel for Hillary.

If anything, Trump should have kept quiet on Bernie and allowed him to go away quietly. Now he's going to be fighting for Hillary harder IMO.

Telling Bernie he "sold out to the devil" is not how you do this.

Part of me is glad Trump is a know-nothing buffoon, but at the same time he's still going to get 40%+ of the vote which means our country is almost okay with a know-nothing buffoon running things as long as they're "their guy."

ughhhh

I get the feeling Trump thought, for some reason, that Bernie would come over to his side or run third-party and now he's angry at Bernie for not doing so.

I have no idea why he thought that would happen, though, unless he thought that Bernie was as unprincipled as Trump. Which I guess makes sense for Trump to think.
 

sangreal

Member
A line that would fit in a modern day re-make of Dr. Strangelove.


Trump keeps calling out Bernie. Like, he's begging Bernie to go on a major campaign trail spiel for Hillary.

If anything, Trump should have kept quiet on Bernie and allowed him to go away quietly. Now he's going to be fighting for Hillary harder IMO.

Telling Bernie he "sold out to the devil" is not how you do this.

Part of me is glad Trump is a know-nothing buffoon, but at the same time he's still going to get 40%+ of the vote which means our country is almost okay with a know-nothing buffoon running things as long as they're "their guy."

ughhhh

I don't think Trump is trying to court Bernie voters, he is just trying to keep them agitated
 

TheFatOne

Member
I forget his name, but a Republican strategist on MSNBC had a good point. If someone in Trumps hierarchy gets rejected for security clearance that information is going to become public and hurt his campaign. Never really thought about that from all Russia stuff recently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom