• 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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
The LL Bean thing just got even more messed up

https://twitter.com/AndyRichter/status/819602533165346816

Short vers. of what he's doing: Linda Bean is RW crank on board of @LLBean. She's a big Trump donor, and has her own lobster biz. 1/5

She has nothing to do w day-to-day @LLBean which is fairly apolitical brand that does much local good. They've publicly repudiated her. 2/5

So Trump, quid pro quo, tweets support for her & @LLBean, but tags her lobster biz. He says "Buy LLBean" but doesn't tag them. 3/5

He knows damn well tweeting "buy LLBean" will spark a wholly undeserved boycott, while promoting Linda's biz to like-minded Trumpsters 4/5

So out of sheer ego-driven vindictiveness, he attempts to harm a historic US business, which in turn hurts Maine's economy. Fuck him. 5/5
 
I heard Bill Maher recommend Gavin Newsom and when I looked him up and watched some speeches, I was really impressed. Very progressive but with a charisma that seems very conservative...it's actually hard to put into words, but I definitely see him running someday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcbxDl4RyFs

Newsom is running for governor in 2018, so I'd be surprised if he ran for president in 2020. He also would have a few issues to deal with (an infidelity scandal and the mixed reception a California/San Francisco liberal would receive in certain parts of the country)
 
I heard Bill Maher recommend Gavin Newsom and when I looked him up and watched some speeches, I was really impressed. Very progressive but with a charisma that seems very conservative...it's actually hard to put into words, but I definitely see him running someday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcbxDl4RyFs

Ah, he has very nice cadence.

Hey all, I'm a long-time lurker, and reading PoliGaf has really helped me this past year.

One thing that has been on my mind recently is how far gone the country has gone in terms of facts and confirmation bias. It made me wonder, has there been any research that has been done that explicitly quantifies or demonstrates "post-truth" society? It came up in a conversation with a friend, and I thought maybe one of you all knew something in this regard.

Thanks for any thoughts/replies!

Trying search for a Ted Talks about the "Information Bubble".
 
Newsom is running for governor in 2018, so I'd be surprised if he ran for president in 2020. He also would have a few issues to deal with (an infidelity scandal and the mixed reception a California/San Francisco liberal would receive in certain parts of the country)
Are Californians ok with Newsom? Everyone says he has hookers and drugs in his past. I dont want to lose the big state to some Arnold-lite idiot again.
 

ShOcKwAvE

Member
Newsom is running for governor in 2018, so I'd be surprised if he ran for president in 2020. He also would have a few issues to deal with (an infidelity scandal and the mixed reception a California/San Francisco liberal would receive in certain parts of the country)

Yes, I did say "someday" though. Plus plenty of politicians run for higher office while in their first terms (Obama for example).

Infidelity is sorta cancelled out by PEOTUS :)
 
Expecting something like that seems off though, I don't think we have enough data to even conclude Trump could move that many people to jump on a retail brand. Hell, look at New Balance and how fucked up their marketing has still been since they inadvertently hitched a ride with Trump's stance on TPP.

Probably lol. I just don't want to lose my progressive cred because I wear Bean stuff.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
As if Trump was actually that smart.

He easily is. The dude is probably one of the smartest people in the world when it comes to brand management and brand recognition - and this is exactly in his wheelhouse. He used his brand to become LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.
 
Isn't it just from DOJ Inspector General?

You are correct. The phrasing threw me.

He easily is. The dude is probably one of the smartest people in the world when it comes to brand management and brand recognition - and this is exactly in his wheelhouse. He used his brand to become LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.

Yeah but it also means he leveraged acknowledgment that millions upon millions of people despise him. I dunno.
 
He easily is. The dude is probably one of the smartest people in the world when it comes to brand management and brand recognition - and this is exactly in his wheelhouse. He used his brand to become LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.

His sense of brand management is so strong that he mocked a disabled reporter during a rally.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
His brand management is so strong that he mocked a disabled reporter during a rally.

The people he's selling to don't care. Trump uses con-man tactics and as a result it's harder to get people to see the truth when it's right in front of them, especially when they are the mark.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
His brand management is so strong that he mocked a disabled reporter during a rally.

Yet he somehow became more popular and won the election. Maybe that wasn't such a terrible thing for his brand.

Maybe that's why he's president and we're just random people on a message board.
 
Are Californians ok with Newsom? Everyone says he has hookers and drugs in his past. I dont want to lose the big state to some Arnold-lite idiot again.

He had an affair with his campaign manager back when he was San Francisco's mayor - it wouldn't really be a stumbling block in California though (especially as he's pretty popular/well-liked and seen as the natural successor to Jerry Brown). It might end up going to a run-off depending on how many candidates run but he's the clear favorite right now, though there's a long way to go and not every potential candidate has declared their intentions.
 
He had an affair with his campaign manager back when he was San Francisco's mayor - it wouldn't really be a stumbling block in California though (especially as he's pretty popular/well-liked and seen as the natural successor to Jerry Brown). It might end up going to a run-off depending on how many candidates run but he's the clear favorite right now, though there's a long way to go and not every potential candidate has declared their intentions.

Pretty sure he's had lots of affairs.
 
Yet he somehow became more popular and won the election. Maybe that wasn't such a terrible thing for his brand.

Maybe that's why he's president and we're just random people on a message board.

It's such a not terrible thing for his brand that he's spent 14 months trying to deny it and he's already one of the most hated presidents of all time with his approval rating at 37%.

If actual dem operatives have these same thoughts as you, we're pretttttty fucked. Your analysis is terrible.
 

Crocodile

Member
Yet he somehow became more popular and won the election. Maybe that wasn't such a terrible thing for his brand.

Maybe that's why he's president and we're just random people on a message board.

At the very least, let's not conflate "he won" with "he's popular". He clearly isn't.
 
Trump was legitimately popular among people who are actual Nazis and that's how he won the primary

But very few Americans like Trump at all and Trump won the election because Hillary was hated and even then, she was up by 5 points in an election that had the fundamentals as R+2. It wasn't until the Deep State sabotaged Hillary in the last week that she lost the election. Let's have this be clear, Trump was underperforming the fundamentals by 6 or 7 points against one of the most hated politicians in America (even with the Kremlin as his SuperPAC) until the Deep State intervened in the campaign.
 
Like, my dad is one of the few people that legitimately liked Trump and helped him win the primary.

My dad is a stalker who makes fun of the disabled, makes wildly racist comments, and says that all people who speak Arabic are terrorists and he claims that he's wildly oppressed all the time. He's a Christian in identity, but has not attended church in two decades but still gets extremely offended when you question the church.

There are lots of these people among the GOP base, but there are very few of them in the overall electorate. It's maybe 20% of people who are like this.
 
Goal #1 for Dems: Nominate someone that is really likable and doesn't have exploitable scandals or extreme policy positions that could potentially affect a ton of people negatively.

This is where the focus should be. Trying to reanalyze the "brilliance" of a man that literally HAD TO HAVE HIS FUCKING CELL PHONE CONFISCATED BY KELLYANNE IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF THE CAMPAIGN BECAUSE HE HAD NO IMPULSE CONTROL is counterproductive.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Goal #1 for Dems: Nominate someone that is really likable and doesn't have exploitable scandals or extreme policy positions that could potentially affect a ton of people negatively.

This is where the focus should be. Trying to reanalyze the "brilliance" of a man that literally HAD TO HAVE HIS FUCKING CELL PHONE CONFISCATED BY KELLYANNE IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF THE CAMPAIGN BECAUSE HE HAD NO IMPULSE CONTROL is counterproductive.

George Clooney
Oprah

There's your short-list. Gotta get the squirrels their shiny.
 
I'm sorry, I'm just going to fucking scream if Dems keep trying to reanalyze Trump as a brilliant tactician or try to pretend that the election was about something other than EMAILS.

Trump had his cellphone confiscated by Kellyanne Conway in the last two weeks of the campaign because she was worried he was such a child that he was going to tweet something really stupid that stopped him from becoming the POTUS.

This happened. Stop pretending it didn't happen to feel better about the world and better about yourselves.
 

tuxfool

Banned
George Clooney
Oprah

There's your short-list. Gotta get the squirrels their shiny.

Honestly, I'm starting to think that people at the top don't really matter at all. You may joke, but provided they have good advisers and appoint capable people, I'm not sure there is much to lose. I still wouldn't recommend it, but it isn't as much of a joke as it appears.
 
Goal #1 for Dems: Nominate someone that is really likable and doesn't have exploitable scandals or extreme policy positions that could potentially affect a ton of people negatively.

This is where the focus should be. Trying to reanalyze the "brilliance" of a man that literally HAD TO HAVE HIS FUCKING CELL PHONE CONFISCATED BY KELLYANNE IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF THE CAMPAIGN BECAUSE HE HAD NO IMPULSE CONTROL is counterproductive.

.
 

BiggNife

Member
Just heard about Cory Booker voting against the plan to lower prescription prices. That's super disappointing.

I really hope Booker doesn't end up being the 2020 candidate. I used to like the guy a lot but it really feels like he has the same problems Hillary had.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
It's such a not terrible thing for his brand that he's spent 14 months trying to deny it and he's already one of the most hated presidents of all time with his approval rating at 37%.

If actual dem operatives have these same thoughts as you, we're pretttttty fucked. Your analysis is terrible.

Man, thankfully it's not like Obama was ever that low or something.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Low point, three-day average 38 Eight times, most recently Sep 2-5, 2014

Or George W Bush
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

George W. Bush's Second-Term Average - 37%

I mean, obviously his approval rating after winning one of the most divisive elections in history and right before one of the most well liked presidents in history is about to leave isn't going to change or anything. It'll always be this low (or hell, this high, depending on how terrible of a President he is), obviously. :-/


At the very least, let's not conflate "he won" with "he's popular". He clearly isn't.

He's not popular overall, but what he is lacking in popularity he is trying to make up for intensity. Basically, it's about having super zealous supporters rather than a bunch of supporters. I mean, his current strategy seems to be trying to use hyperpartisanship to gain popularity amongst the moderate Republicans who did end up defecting. Basically, trying to make himself where everyone who doesn't like progressives ends up (rather than somewhere in the middle, or boarding the NeverTrump train).

I'M SOMEONE!

Yeah yeah I know. :p

You can be brilliant at certain things and completely fucking incompetent at others. I don't see why it's so controversial that Trump has a history of being good at branding and media manipulation. He can be completely unhinged and idiotic at darn well near everything else, but you don't get to where he is by sheer dumb luck.

To be blunt: I heard the same kind of "he's an idiot, blah blah" talk about GWB right after he won the 2000 election, and it caused us to underestimate the fuck out of him and lose again in 2004.
 
Obviously Trump did some things right but acting as though he did everything right is basically the same error as thinking Clinton did everything wrong. Just because you win doesn't mean you did perfectly, and just because you lost doesn't mean everything you did was a mistake.

Trump was running against a candidate with a lot of baggage and had Russia and the FBI intervening on his behalf. That got him a close victory (less than a 1% margin in the tipping point state, 2% loss in the popular vote) and historically low approvals for an incoming president. Trump doesn't have magic powers, and Bannon is not the genius he's made out to be.

It's important to be think about what went wrong this time around and not replicate the mistakes. I think it's fair to say the 2020 nominee should have less baggage and be able to connect better with working class voters. That having been said, analyses like "we can't offend bigots" and "we need to nominate a celebrity" are, IMO, overreactions.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
George Clooney
Oprah

There's your short-list. Gotta get the squirrels their shiny.
I would fight tooth and nail against Oprah. We'd get Dr. Oz as Surgeon General. She has pushed far too much anti-science bullshit across her career.
 

BiggNife

Member
Obviously Trump did some things right but acting as though he did everything right is basically the same error as thinking Clinton did everything wrong. Just because you win doesn't mean you did perfectly, and just because you lost doesn't mean everything you did was a mistake.

Trump was running against a candidate with a lot of baggage and had Russia and the FBI intervening on his behalf. That got him a close victory (less than a 1% margin in the tipping point state, 2% loss in the popular vote) and historically low approvals for an incoming president. Trump doesn't have magic powers, and Bannon is not the genius he's made out to be.

It's important to be think about what went wrong this time around and not replicate the mistakes. I think it's fair to say the 2020 nominee should have less baggage and be able to connect better with working class voters. That having been said, analyses like "we can't offend bigots" and "we need to nominate a celebrity" are, IMO, overreactions.
I feel the same way.

I get that everyone's frustrated at the outcome but I don't think the only solution is nominating a celebrity. Just someone with no baggage and strong public speaking skills.

I think the biggest mistake would be nominating someone like Booker. It would just be 2016 all over again. I'd be fine with someone like Kander or Harris or Cortez-Masto.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Obviously Trump did some things right but acting as though he did everything right is basically the same error as thinking Clinton did everything wrong. Just because you win doesn't mean you did perfectly, and just because you lost doesn't mean everything you did was a mistake.

Trump was running against a candidate with a lot of baggage and had Russia and the FBI intervening on his behalf. That got him a close victory (less than a 1% margin in the tipping point state, 2% loss in the popular vote) and historically low approvals for an incoming president. Trump doesn't have magic powers, and Bannon is not the genius he's made out to be.

It's important to be think about what went wrong this time around and not replicate the mistakes. I think it's fair to say the 2020 nominee should have less baggage and be able to connect better with working class voters. That having been said, analyses like "we can't offend bigots" and "we need to nominate a celebrity" are, IMO, overreactions.

I mean, the only thing I really give Trump himself credit for is being unbelievably savvy about the news cycle and manipulating the news cycle and media to do a ton of work for him. See all the charts about how much free advertising the media ended up giving him. The only other kind of smart thing he did was hire Conway, who, despite being a ridiculous money chasing sleazeball who I dislike on an extreme level, did her job well during the election (which includes being able to convince the toddler-esque Trump to hand over his phone and not do anything stupid).

Outside of that, this election, at least currently, felt like "which one of them can mess up the least". Trump played the media really well, played his brand really well, and then got lucky with Clinton having a few costly mistakes that came up at the wrong time (and played into his media manipulation well). But we do have to understand that while his messaging is despicable and messed up and generally not palatable to the majority of Americans, it is on-target with enough people to win the presidential election (even if not popular vote) - and we have to counter that (be it by expanding the electoral pool, effectively highlighting his hypocrisy, etc) for both 2018 and 2020.
 
So how much of Cory Booker not voting to lower drug prices was because he genuinely didn't like that law vs him being full of shit?
 
Man, thankfully it's not like Obama was ever that low or something.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx



Or George W Bush
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx



I mean, obviously his approval rating after winning one of the most divisive elections in history and right before one of the most well liked presidents in history is about to leave isn't going to change or anything. It'll always be this low (or hell, this high, depending on how terrible of a President he is), obviously. :-/




He's not popular overall, but what he is lacking in popularity he is trying to make up for intensity. Basically, it's about having super zealous supporters rather than a bunch of supporters. I mean, his current strategy seems to be trying to use hyperpartisanship to gain popularity amongst the moderate Republicans who did end up defecting. Basically, trying to make himself where everyone who doesn't like progressives ends up (rather than somewhere in the middle, or boarding the NeverTrump train).



Yeah yeah I know. :p

You can be brilliant at certain things and completely fucking incompetent at others. I don't see why it's so controversial that Trump has a history of being good at branding and media manipulation. He can be completely unhinged and idiotic at darn well near everything else, but you don't get to where he is by sheer dumb luck.

To be blunt: I heard the same kind of "he's an idiot, blah blah" talk about GWB right after he won the 2000 election, and it caused us to underestimate the fuck out of him and lose again in 2004.

Sure, most presidents have low approvals at some point during their presidency. However, incoming presidents almost always have high approvals (60ish is pretty typical). Starting out underwater is not a good sign. Could those numbers go up? Of course, and I wouldn't want to place any bets one way or the other on the 2020 election at this point. But I think there's just as much danger in overestimating Trump as there is in underestimating him, as it will also cause strategic errors. I would rather go with someone like Sherrod Brown than a lot of the other names that get thrown around (Sanders, Kander, Clooney) based on what I would consider overreactions.
 
So looking at the Nevada State Assembly (controlled now by Dems) only 3 (!!) Dem members of the caucus aren't from Clark County. They're all from Washoe County (2 from Reno, one from a Reno suburb).

Of the 15 GOPers, 1 is from Lyon County, 1 is from Nye County, 1 is from Douglas County, 1 is from Elko County, 1 is from Carson City, 3 are from Reno/suburbs in Washoe County, and the remaining 7 are from Clark County, with 4 in Vegas proper.
 
So how much of Cory Booker not voting to lower drug prices was because he genuinely didn't like that law vs him being full of shit?

Importing drugs from Canada instead of just changing U.S. drug laws into Canadian drug laws is kind of stupid.

But the excuse Booker and other "No" voters gave about "consumer safety" is some laughable bullshit, omg. Do they think Americans view Canadian as some unsafe hellhole/libertarian paradise where they approve drugs without testing them? What a joke, lol.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Sure, most presidents have low approvals at some point during their presidency. However, incoming presidents almost always have high approvals (60ish is pretty typical). Starting out underwater is not a good sign. Could those numbers go up? Of course, and I wouldn't want to place any bets one way or the other on the 2020 election at this point. But I think there's just as much danger in overestimating Trump as there is in underestimating him, as it will also cause strategic errors. I would rather go with someone like Sherrod Brown than a lot of the other names that get thrown around (Sanders, Kander, Clooney) based on what I would consider overreactions.

FWIW, I actually do think his numbers will go up a teensy bit after the inauguration, but then stay like in the 30s for the majority of his presidency. (If any of the Russia rumors get verified, then all bets are off). But approval ratings are often just tied to "how the country is doing" as much as anything else - so if we have an economic boom because of a completely extraneous reason, Trump's approval ratings would rocket up. So I think looking at how he played the media and press is something that we should do in terms of trying to properly estimate him. I probably wouldn't go further than that for now.

As for who to run in 2020 - Brown seems good, but 4 years is a long time away, and I suspect Trump may end up creating a couple of Democratic superstars over the next 2-4 years. Basically, too early to tell for me. I don't like the idea of a celebrity or whatnot - I think that's taking the wrong lesson out of it.
 
This might sound crazy but I would like it if my party ran someone qualified for president. Sorry if that's a purity test.

So looking at the Nevada State Assembly (controlled now by Dems) only 3 (!!) Dem members of the caucus aren't from Clark County. They're all from Washoe County (2 from Reno, one from a Reno suburb).

Of the 15 GOPers, 1 is from Lyon County, 1 is from Nye County, 1 is from Douglas County, 1 is from Elko County, 1 is from Carson City, 3 are from Reno/suburbs in Washoe County, and the remaining 7 are from Clark County, with 4 in Vegas proper.
This actually fits pretty handily, since Hillary narrowly won Washoe and CCM narrowly lost it. All politics really is national.

Importing drugs from Canada instead of just changing U.S. drug laws into Canadian drug laws is kind of stupid.

But the excuse Booker and other "No" voters gave about "consumer safety" is some laughable bullshit, omg. Do they think Americans view Canadian as some unsafe hellhole/libertarian paradise where they approve drugs without testing them? What a joke, lol.
Booker is the actual cariacture people made Hillary out to be, he's the worst lol
 
why you guys sleeping on my girl

landscape-1478696227-catherinesenator.jpg


This might sound crazy but I would like it if my party ran someone qualified for president. Sorry if that's a purity test.

This actually fits pretty handily, since Hillary narrowly won Washoe and CCM narrowly lost it. All politics really is national.

Booker is the actual cariacture people made Hillary out to be, he's the worst lol

Washoe is literally 3 Dems, 3 Republicans. The ultimate swing county!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom