• 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 |OT9| The Wrath of Khan!

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is pretty silly to say "sure, Hillary is looking like she'll win normally red states and start converting lifelong GOP voters to Democrats, but she's not going to win 49 states, so she must suck!" You're picking one of the most historically lopsided electoral outcomes to compare against.

Well, yes. I keep harping on her historically terrible favorability ratings, but Trump's are worse than Mondale and Goldwater's, too (and worse than hers). And neither of them had a prominent intraparty opponent refuse to endorse them at the election or have as much of the party establishment and the media against them. On the merits we should be expecting one of the most historically lopsided electoral outcomes. We've seen this happen before: a party gets taken over by extremists, nominates a candidate well outside the American mainstream, and gets crushed. 1984 and 1964 are the best parallels to this current election.



Sanders never led Clinton head to head. Beating another candidate by more than your opponent beats that candidate is obviously not a good metric. There are too many other variables and, since they will never be held accountable for the claim, it's easy to say "I'll vote for Sanders but I'll never vote for Clinton!" Since we know that the vast majority of Sanders supporters are now Clinton supporters it's very safe to say this polling result was meaningless.

There's nothing to argue with here. I mean that literally: there's nothing but unsubstantiated speculation, so there's nothing to respond to.

Hey, I can do that too. Beating another candidate by more than your opponent beats that candidate is obviously the best predictor of long-term electoral success. Hey, this is fun. Probably works better when you're in the mainstream opinion of the thread, though.


Independents aren't real. They are mostly conservatives. I am not sure why people keep bringing them up as though this hasn't been known since it started happening a lot in 2010.

And Bernie did better with these conservatives than when it was just Democrats because...?



She did. They're actually way better now. People just had to get to know her!

It was -17 the week before the conventions. We should perhaps wait for convention bounces to wear off before making any judgments.



There's also a third option, which is that, once again, you have created a model of the American political system which doesn't match reality.

Classy.
 

aaaaa0

Member
Donald Trump declined to name any possible women he would name to his cabinet as president on Wednesday, instead naming his daughter Ivanka and the woman interviewing him as possible cabinet members.

“Well, we have so many different ones to choose,” Trump told First Coast News in Florida. Trump was speaking with Angelia Savage, who hosts The Chat on the channel; she previously worked for the Trump Organization. The Chat later aired the full answer to the question.

“I can tell you everybody would say, ‘Put Ivanka in, put Ivanka in,’ you know that, right?” Trump said. “She’s very popular, she’s done very well, and you know Ivanka very well. But there really are so many that are really talented people — like you, you’re so talented, but I don’t know if your viewers know that.”
Like, the proper response is to say of course we're going to consider women along with men for cabinet positions but it's too early to start thinking about that when I have an election to win.

But uh...what the fuck is Ivanka qualified to do in a cabinet position? Seriously?

I think on top of that is Federal nepotism laws actually make it illegal for him to appoint Ivanka. But I guess you can't really expect Trump to know that, or anything else, really (lol).

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:5 section:3110 edition:prelim)
Code:
(a) 

For the purpose of this section - 

     (1) "agency" means - 
          (A) an Executive agency; 
          (B) an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch; 
          (C) an office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch; and 
          (D) the government of the District of Columbia; 

     (2) "public official" means an officer [b][u](including the President and a Member of [/b][/u]
     [b][u]Congress)[/b][/u], a member of the uniformed service, an employee and any other 
     individual, in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the 
     authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals, or to 
     recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in 
     connection with employment in an agency; and 

     (3) "relative" means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the 
     public official as father, mother, son, [b][u]daughter[/u][/b], brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first 
     cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in- law, son-in-law, daughter-
     in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, 
     stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister. 

(b) 

[b][u]A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for 
appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the 
agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any 
individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, 
employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such 
appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public 
official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of 
the individual. [/u][/b]

(c) 

An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is 
not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual 
so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced. 

(d) 

The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations authorizing the 
temporary employment, in the event of emergencies resulting from natural disasters or 
similar unforeseen events or circumstances, of individuals whose employment would 
otherwise be prohibited by this section. 

(e)

This section shall not be construed to prohibit the appointment of an individual who is a 
preference eligible in any case in which the passing over of that individual on a certificate 
of eligibles furnished under section 3317(a) of this title will result in the selection for 
appointment of an individual who is not a preference eligible.
 

danm999

Member
Plenty of conservatives also thought Bernie was electoral poison and delighted at the idea of him being the Democratic nominee.
 

pigeon

Banned
Well, yes. I keep harping on her historically terrible favorability ratings, but Trump's are worse than Mondale and Goldwater's, too (and worse than hers). And neither of them had a prominent intraparty opponent refuse to endorse them at the election or have as much of the party establishment and the media against them. On the merits we should be expecting one of the most historically lopsided electoral outcomes. We've seen this happen before: a party gets taken over by extremists, nominates a candidate well outside the American mainstream, and gets crushed. 1984 and 1964 are the best parallels to this current election.

"She's winning by a huge amount but she really should be winning by a much huger amount in my view" is a pretty terrible argument. I don't see a lot more to say than that.

There's nothing to argue with here. I mean that literally: there's nothing but unsubstantiated speculation, so there's nothing to respond to.

It works better if you read the post, man. Here, I'll make bullet points for you.

* Sanders never led Clinton head to head. This is factual and obviously relevant to your argument.
* Leads against a third party is not a good metric. This isn't speculation, it's the null hypothesis. You're the one claiming probative value here for a metric. The burden is on you to explain why we should care about that metric, which you haven't done.
* It's easy to say you won't vote for Clinton before the question actually comes up. We already know this from the 2008 election from the large numbers of people who claimed they wouldn't vote for Obama while the primary was still going on, then went ahead and did so. Plenty of evidence that people do this.
* Most Sanders supporters are now Clinton supporters. This has been polled a bunch of times already.

No part of this is unsubstantiated speculation.

And Bernie did better with these conservatives than when it was just Democrats because...?

As noted, "conservatives are sexist/racist/think Bernie is easy to beat" are all good answers here.

It was -17 the week before the conventions. We should perhaps wait for convention bounces to wear off before making any judgments.

Convention bounces last about a month according to 538. Are you seeing her favorability rating trend downwards? It should be by now if this is all bounce.


I mean, I think I was pretty friendly about it.
 

watershed

Banned
Plenty of conservatives also thought Bernie was electoral poison and delighted at the idea of him being the Democratic nominee.
I think it is true that Bernie would not have the big tent message Hillary unveiled at the DNC and is shockingly a worse politician than Hillary. He's too ideologically pure to even open the democratic party to people who don't support $15 dollar national minimum wage or tuition free college, much less disaffected republicans and moderates.

And because he was treated with kid gloves, he would be nuked to hell and back in the GE by the GOP.

Plus this is all pretending Bernie was a good enough politician to win the democratic nomination which he clearly is not.

I think Bernie would not be doing as well as Hillary is now even if Trump imploded in the exact same way.
 

mo60

Member
Hilary is no monodale. She most likely would have beaten any of the candidates that were trying to get the GOP nomination for president this year by a decent or comfortable margin.She would have not crushed any of these candidates besides maybe cruz and obviously trump which we will see in november.

Also hilary does have a shot at getting over 400EV's in this election because of trump but I expect her to end up getting anywere from 350EV's to 390EV's.
 
Well, yes. I keep harping on her historically terrible favorability ratings, but Trump's are worse than Mondale and Goldwater's, too (and worse than hers). And neither of them had a prominent intraparty opponent refuse to endorse them at the election or have as much of the party establishment and the media against them. On the merits we should be expecting one of the most historically lopsided electoral outcomes. We've seen this happen before: a party gets taken over by extremists, nominates a candidate well outside the American mainstream, and gets crushed. 1984 and 1964 are the best parallels to this current election.

1964 and 1984 are no way good parallels to today. 1964 saw a whole host of conservative democrats and does not contain the partisan ideological realignment that we have today. 1984 was a reelection of a popular president coming off an expanding economy. In fact Mondale only pulled even with Reagan after his convention and was constantly behind in the polls. The best election to compare this to is 2000. No direct reelection that year, the parties had already been reshuffled ideologically, and you had a lot of people not liking Gore.

Lopsided only existed in the past because the parties were not ideologically define yet. We'll never see that again in our modern political time. Just think about this, Reagan was a popular governor of California. Today only democrats control that state.
 

thebloo

Member
I don't see the point in arguing anymore. An anti-immigration, anti-gay Latino that imploded on stage at the first sign of pressure would have become President. Sure.
 

Diablos

Member
Jeff Zucker
President of CNN

Jeff Zucker Concedes CNN Has Been ‘A Little Too Liberal’

Jeff Zucker praises Corey Lewandowski, slams Vice and BuzzFeed

Zucker is just terrible. It's not important to have a voice that supports the white nationalist fascist candidate, regardless of which party they represent.
Zucker sucks. Sucks big time.

Three questions:
a. Who the hell put him in charge
b. Why
c. When can he go away

Also why is Trump continuing to use The Rolling Stones without their permission
 

Clefargle

Member
And Bernie did better with these conservatives than when it was just Democrats because...?

Classy.

Because independents base their political stances on anti-party notions more than they do in a traditional conservative/liberal framework. Many of their self identifiers and justifications come from, "I'm not with that/those party(ie)s". But their actions and voting history line up with traditional conservative/liberals lines. So these conservative "independents" voted to support Bernie's strong "anti establishment" rhetoric. Simple
 

Maledict

Member
The fact that after all of this Trump is still winning the white vote is just... Depressing. I know all countries have problems, and racism exists everywhere, but it seems like it is America's special curse. To still have a majority of white voters supporting a literal racist is astonishing.
 
The fact that after all of this Trump is still winning the white vote is just... Depressing. I know all countries have problems, and racism exists everywhere, but it seems like it is America's special curse. To still have a majority of white voters supporting a literal racist is astonishing.
It's definitely incredibly saddening and makes me feel awful daily. Even as racism persists, people have created new ways to exclude themselves or not feel responsible for it. How that Obama/Trump H2H PPP poll didn't have him up by +15-20 drives this all home really.
 

kess

Member
I hope Orlando Bloom comes to the US and becomes a citizen so we can have the O'Malley/Bloom tight abs ticket, the constitution be damned
 

Maledict

Member
Just to say after going through some of the DNC speeches, one of my favorites which didn't seem to get mentioned much here was Cory Bookers. The last 5 minutes of his speech building up to the 'We will rise!' line was absolutely fantastic. It's sinful how many good speakers the democrats have.
 
I.CANT.BREATHE.

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
The plane I saw on television was the hostage plane in Geneva, Switzerland, not the plane carrying $400 million in cash going to Iran!
 

sazzy

Member
from nytimes

by acting director of CIA (ex)


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/0...the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.



Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which so clearly contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative that our fight against terrorism is a war between religions.

In fact, many Muslim Americans play critical roles in protecting our country, including the man, whom I cannot identify, who ran the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center for nearly a decade and who I believe is most responsible for keeping America safe since the Sept. 11 attacks.
 
Hell yes.

Please do this Georgia, please.

As someone that lives in Cobb county, I thought Hell would freeze over before Georgia would vote Democrat ever again in a Presidential election.
I know there is a lot of people here who do not take kindly to shit talking anyone in the military or their parents. Dunno if that's the reason though.
 
Mika and the others on Morning Joe trying to find all sorts of different ways to convince Michael Steele to say he won't support Trump. He was even asked if he could stomach supporting him as a father and I don't think that did anything. This sort of turned into a weird kind of intervention.

Did he just admit he was wrong?

This is so bizarre.

I wouldn't be surprised if his mind finds a way to keep this conspiracy theory alive in a way that proves he was correct all along by the time he starts his rally.
 
Did he just admit he was wrong?

This is so bizarre.

Yes, cable news + morning shows started asking questions, and he puts out a tweet to shut the issue down.

He has two rallies today in WI, don't expect him to ever mention the video again. Who the hell knows.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
God, I hope our idiot media doesn't act all impressed with that stupid tweet and use that as proof of the mythical Trump "pivot" like how they did that one time Trump spoke off a teleprompter and managed to not insult anyone.
 

Piecake

Member
WASHINGTON — By riding his appeal among working-class whites to the top of the Republican Party, Donald J. Trump has emboldened conservative thinkers to press their party of business and the privileged to reshape its economic canon to more directly benefit poorer workers it has often taken for granted.

The policy prescriptions of these so-called reform conservatives, or “reformocons,” would not only break with some longtime Republican orthodoxy — disavowing tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich, for example — they would also counter more recent stances by Mr. Trump on trade and immigration.

And because of a lack of policy specifics in Mr. Trump’s personality-centered campaign, reform conservatives see an opening through which to push their prescriptions.

■ Reject additional tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year, but expand breaks for low- and middle-income workers through tax credits for children, the earned-income tax credit or a new wage subsidy that would provide a guaranteed minimum income.

■ Promote the benefits of global trade agreements, but help displaced workers.

■ Rule out privatizing Social Security and Medicare, and reassure workers they will be exempt from cost-cutting.

■ Acknowledge that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay, but push for market-oriented changes.

■ Disavow mass deportations and promote the economic benefits of legalizing longtime workers who are in the country illegally, but reduce the legal entry of less-skilled immigrants.

“It’s hard to imagine the Grover Norquist tax pledge having the salience it once did,” Mr. Cass said, referring to the longstanding anti-tax vow that most Republican candidates take. “That model of ‘no tax increases, ever, under any circumstances’ I think is probably on its way out or gone.”

As Trump Rises, ‘Reformocons’ See Chance to Update G.O.P.’s Economic Views


Interesting. Politically, it would be a very good idea for the republicans to do this. It should be obvious to anyone that populist ideas are popular with working class white voters, and taking these ideas on will weaken the next demagogic populist candidate who tries to take advantage of the Republican coalition's cleavages.

If this does change, all I can say is thank fucking Christ. There might be some actual common ground where democrats and republicans can actually get shit done instead of Republicans just saying no to everything and demanding tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to everything else.

I actually think this might have an okay chance of happening since absorbing the ideas of a fringe candidate or 'outside' force to weaken that and strengthen the party is classic two-party politics.
 
This is basically a lot of stuff that was in the book Grand New Party, written by Reihan Salam (who is noted in the article) and Ross Douthat (NYT columnist). EDIT: Reading further through the article, they note this explicitly lol. I read that book years ago and was really on board with it.

I would be very happy for the GOP to transform to that kind of political party, but it would take a very large purge that I'm not sure is going to happen. But there will be nothing greater for the party and the country for Grover Norquist's pledge told to go fuck itself.
 

bomma_man

Member
As Trump Rises, ‘Reformocons’ See Chance to Update G.O.P.’s Economic Views


Interesting. Politically, it would be a very good idea for the republicans to do this. It should be obvious to anyone that populist ideas are popular with working class white voters, and taking these ideas on will weaken the next demagogic populist candidate who tries to take advantage of the Republican coalition's cleavages.

If this does change, all I can say is thank fucking Christ. There might be some actual common ground where democrats and republicans can actually get shit done instead of Republicans just saying no to everything and demanding tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to everything else.

I actually think this might have an okay chance of happening since absorbing the ideas of a fringe candidate or 'outside' force to weaken that and strengthen the party is classic two-party politics.

If they can combine this with the Koch wing's criminal justice reform and Arnie's climate change acknowledgement they'll be halfway to mediocre!
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Hillary did not say "screw" the White House correspondents dinner. Michael morell is a LIAR

ALSO

JIll stein fans will probably hate that article.
 

Ecotic

Member
This is anecdotal and nothing out of the ordinary, but Trump's problem in Georgia (beyond the minority growth around Atlanta) is his weakness among enough evangelical voters who value morality and character. Mostly middle-aged white women who have been a reliable Republican vote.

I have lots of friends on facebook who are promoting Gary Johnson videos. Many of them the mothers of my K-12 friends.
 

Piecake

Member
This is basically a lot of stuff that was in the book Grand New Party, written by Reihan Salam (who is noted in the article) and Ross Douthat (NYT columnist). EDIT: Reading further through the article, they note this explicitly lol. I read that book years ago and was really on board with it.

I would be very happy for the GOP to transform to that kind of political party, but it would take a very large purge that I'm not sure is going to happen. But there will be nothing greater for the party and the country for Grover Norquist's pledge to be told to go fuck itself.

I don't think it will take a purge. Parties have done this repeatedly in our past without a huge shake-up. The members simply have to buy in that this is the way that the party is now going. Focusing there tax cutting on the middle and lower class instead of the wealthy and specifically focusing on the needs of working class voters does not change their core identity of less regulation, free markets, and social conservatism.

Ideologues will obviously not change their mind, but I think most Republicans will do what is best for the party and what is best for them to get elected. If adopting a more populist message for the working class helps their party and helps them to get elected then I think most will be all for it. They still can keep their identity of business and social conservatism. They will now add something onto that as well with not taking too much away.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Diablos shut up.

Edit: no need to freak out because he's not a horrific dumpster fire by 8am. Silly goose.
 

Crisco

Banned
It's funny how I can always identify a Jennifer Rubin article by the headline, just look for the one that appears to have been written by a 3rd grader.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
As Trump Rises, ‘Reformocons’ See Chance to Update G.O.P.’s Economic Views


Interesting. Politically, it would be a very good idea for the republicans to do this. It should be obvious to anyone that populist ideas are popular with working class white voters, and taking these ideas on will weaken the next demagogic populist candidate who tries to take advantage of the Republican coalition's cleavages.

If this does change, all I can say is thank fucking Christ. There might be some actual common ground where democrats and republicans can actually get shit done instead of Republicans just saying no to everything and demanding tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to everything else.

I actually think this might have an okay chance of happening since absorbing the ideas of a fringe candidate or 'outside' force to weaken that and strengthen the party is classic two-party politics.

None of that implies they won't double down on racism. Look at the Nazi party, it was a "worker's party" too, but those kinds of parties use cheap rethoric, nationalism, fear and scapegoats to get in power.

So you'll have a party in Trump's image, but without an idiot in charge.

Dangerous!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom