• 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.

numble

Member
The good will towards social media platforms rarely ever extends to their creators though.

I mean, remember MySpace? Everyone had a MySpace account at one point, but Tom was always a joke.

The time to compare Facebook to MySpace was maybe a decade ago. Zuckerberg has much more name recognition and following than Tom.

Here was a Morning Consult poll that found 48% of voters viewed him favorably, 31% with no opinion:
https://morningconsult.com/2016/02/26/apple-ceo-looks-good-in-wake-of-standoff-with-fbi-poll-finds/

3057209-inline-screenshot2016-02-25at80955pm10.png
 

royalan

Member
You can miss me with favorability polling.

Zuckerberg is dead from attacks from BOTH sides the moment he announces his candidacy.
 

numble

Member
You can miss me with favorability polling.

Zuckerberg is dead from attacks from BOTH sides the moment he announces his candicacy.

I don't subscribe to the idea that he would run for President at age 34-35.

He may run for governor of California, and all bets are off with the open primary system. If it is D vs D on the general ballot, the winner goes to the person that appeals to California Republicans more, and California Republicans have a love affair with tech CEOs--the last 2 Republican candidates they put out (before the open primary could make the general ballot D vs D) were tech CEOs. Same logic applies if he runs for Feinstein's Senate seat.
 
The reveal of information actually changes people's opinion about politician as some breaking news here.

Like, everyone who bothered to follow Donald Trump knew that he was a hardcore racist, but most people didn't follow him so his favorability with everyone (black, Hispanic, and white) was like 30%.

But then Trump was revealed to be a hardcore racist to the general public and his favorability with black and Hispanic Americans plummeted to 10% while white favorability climbed to 50% thanks to Nazis finally finding their Dear Leader.

The information that Zuckerberg knows way too many Nazis and helped Trump win is obviously out there, but it's even less known than the fact Trump was a huge racist back in 2010.
 

numble

Member
Meaningless. Hillary had 70% approval ratings four years ago.

How is this meaningless compared to Tom and MySpace? You really think that Zuckerberg is comparable to Tom? Or that Facebook is a flash in the pan comparable to MySpace?

The reveal of information actually changes people's opinion about politician as some breaking news here.

Like, everyone who bothered to follow Donald Trump knew that he was a hardcore racist, but most people didn't follow him so his favorability with everyone (black, Hispanic, and white) was like 30%.

But then Trump was revealed to be a hardcore racist to the general public and his favorability with black and Hispanic Americans plummeted to 10% while white favorability climbed to 50% thanks to Nazis finally finding their Dear Leader.

The information that Zuckerberg knows way too many Nazis and helped Trump win is obviously out there, but it's even less known than the fact Trump was a huge racist back in 2010.
I really don't think that information is as relevant to voters as you would think. I think that would be just noise. That rings like connections to Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers.

And in a crowded California primary for governor or secretary, if everyone attacks Zuckerberg, that puts him as a focus and may make it hard for another candidate to stand out. I don't think many California voters have understood the importance of the open primary system yet, so there is not much focus and name recognition is probably more important than you think--the same way Arnold Schwarzenegger could come out of a recall election where 135 candidates were on the ballot.
 
How is this meaningless compared to Tom and MySpace? You really think that Zuckerberg is comparable to Tom? Or that Facebook is a flash in the pan comparable to MySpace?


I really don't think that information is as relevant to voters as you would think. I think that would be just noise. That rings like connections to Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers.

And in a crowded California primary for governor or secretary, if everyone attacks Zuckerberg, that puts him as a focus and may make it hard for another candidate to stand out. I don't think many California voters have understood the importance of the open primary system yet, so there is not much focus and name recognition is probably more important than you think--the same way Arnold Schwarzenegger could come out of a recall election where 135 candidates were on the ballot.

Zuck is not going to Texas to prepare to run for governor of California.
 
Really, voters do not care. If they did, there would be a boycott of Facebook right now. Most voters view Facebook as an essential part of their lives.

It's also easily spun by saying you wouldn't want someone reviewing everything you want to share with your friends on Facebook.

Ok?

Primary voters might... he has to actually win that first....

I was speaking as to why Zuk would be a terrible politician, that's great voters don't care that he's an anti-intellectual pushover who doesn't actually stand up for his beliefs.. I mean if we're literally going to just start putting people in place with massive character flaws that make them brutally unfit for office just because the voters won't care well fuck it all I guess.
 

numble

Member
Zuck is not going to Texas to prepare to run for governor of California.

A Dem candidate for president doesn't go to Texas anyway.

I think raising a national profile can be part of a California governor or Senate run. Why would you disagree?

Gavin Newsom went to Texas basically as part of his "I should be governor" message, by the way:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/21/local/la-me-cap-texas-20110421

Gavin Newsom treks to Texas to talk jobs
The Democratic lieutenant governor says California can learn a thing or two from Texas about creating jobs
...
Newsom says: "There's a lot of myth [about Texas] but also a lot of reality. It pains me as a Democrat to say that, but I'm not going to sit back and let Republicans define the jobs debate.

"We don't have a jobs plan. We haven't had a plan in over a decade. Texas has a plan. One thing is not a myth: They're aggressive, we're not. They know what they're after, we don't. They have an organizational framework to deliver on a plan. We don't."

Brown would say that he's creating jobs by helping the green economy.

Newsom continues: "We ought to get our act together. [Brown] has done an excellent job focusing laser-like on the budget. And we need to put similar energy on jobs. And I'm confident he's going to do that. I keep telling my Republican friends that he gets it, he's going to get it done."

After meeting with Texas Gov. Perry, Newsom came away impressed. "We see the world through different eyes," he says, "but he is singularly focused on jobs, and that was clear....

"We just have to execute, and Perry's executing. Some of our party don't want to know that because it's uncomfortable....
 
How is this meaningless compared to Tom and MySpace? You really think that Zuckerberg is comparable to Tom? Or that Facebook is a flash in the pan comparable to MySpace?.
Oh sure, sorry, I'm tired and jacked up on cold medicine and thought you were making a point about Zuckerberg's favorability in an election versus awareness compared to Tom.

Yes, Zuckerberg is far more well-known than Tom ever was, I would say, even at the height of MySpace's popularity.
 
Newsom announced he was running for governor back in 2009 (not 2011) and dropped out because Jerry Brown was doing so well in the polls. He was already well along the "I should be governor" path and it was pretty well known he would run again before he went to Texas to give that speech; he just had to "wait his turn" for 2018, when Brown would hit his term limit.

I would be pretty surprised if Zuckerberg ran in 2018. Even if he did, I don't think he would fare well given the number of popular/high-profile Democratic candidates already running.
 
Dammit Zuck. Just go out and enjoy being rich as hell. You're one of the few that actually have been with your company from the start and led its growth so you can claim actual business success. Don't squander your (relatively) good rep further; You've already started to piss off core liberals you'll need in the future. Besides, Trump has proved that you don't need God or even a basic ethical code so long as you have charisma and can control social media. Future CA gov perhaps but nothing more, please.

Agree with "too nerdy" 100%. I know Musk isn't eligible, but he'd suffer hardcore there, too, despite being an actual certifiable science wizard in as close to a "cool" way as you can get. Gore suffered bigly from this. An aside, but I like how we went from Kerry being allegedly too rich and "out of touch" possibly costing him votes to a bastard that owns his own literal golden tower in NYC and flies around on a passenger jet with his name on it.

So! It looks like a high chance of rain for Trump's ceremony. An ominous sign of things to come. Was going to say a blizzard would be more appropriate, but that would just give Trump bigger excuses on why no one showed up and he could make a global warming joke. Of course we already have counterjokes lined up of how weak his supporters must be if they can't stand a little rain, etc. ...Kill me, I don't know how I survive Friday.
 

Pixieking

Banned
It honestly pains me to say this, but this kind of message has no teeth in modern American politics.

Love Trumps Hate

When They Go Low, We Go High

Let's Come Together Kumbayah BlaBlaBla...

These messages test well because they fuel a false sense of superiority among people who already feel they have the moral high ground, but they don't motivate butts to get out of seats, make phone calls, and write checks.

You have got to make the enemy clear. Paint them, define them, be honest about what can be taken away from you. What they WILL take from you, if you don't act. Dems need to stop running away from this and hiding behind cushy-ass messaging, because we actually DO have a very real enemy. Use them.

Yeah, thinking through it again, you've got a point. The only down-side to speaking plainly that Trump (and by extension the GOP) are to blame for any kind of incident is that it may appear opportunistic. But I think 1) Trump has upended enough political norms that any messaging that it's Dem opportunism won't gain ground, 2) the Dems would get points for "telling it how it is", and 3) they could use past GOP National Security professionals, most of whom are NeverTrumpers (still!), to push a bi-partisan message of Trump being dangerous. Perhaps even going back to how a lot of National Security types explicitly endorsed Hillary, due to Trump's attitude.

And that is without, as you rightly say, the motivational points that they can gain for explicitly saying "Trump has made the US (and the world) a more dangerous place. Curb his powers in '18, and stop him and the party that helps him in '20."
 
Looking at future of next 4 years.

In Senate, Warren, Franken and Bernie should take the charge.

Unleash the Biden on Trump/GOP for sure. He is the elder statesman. He has that ability to appeal across the spectrum and understands the meaning of big-tent.

Obama should concentrate on cementing his legacy, prepare the I told you so speeches, help in the redistricting fights and tutor young Democrats.
 

mo60

Member
I find it interesting how some conservative party were I live on the provincial level is already thinking of getting rid of the frontrunner of their leadership race when he has being crushing his opponents for months now. Did the republicans ever think of doing something like that with trump last year during the primaries because if I recall they pretty much let him destroy his competitors in the republican primary last year.
 
Looking at future of next 4 years.

In Senate, Warren, Franken and Bernie should take the charge.

Unleash the Biden on Trump/GOP for sure. He is the elder statesman. He has that ability to appeal across the spectrum and understands the meaning of big-tent.

Obama should concentrate on cementing his legacy, prepare the I told you so speeches, help in the redistricting fights and tutor young Democrats.
Franken is going to be dragged into the 2020 race for the nomination kicking and screaming.
 
Looking at future of next 4 years.

In Senate, Warren, Franken and Bernie should take the charge.

Unleash the Biden on Trump/GOP for sure. He is the elder statesman. He has that ability to appeal across the spectrum and understands the meaning of big-tent.

Obama should concentrate on cementing his legacy, prepare the I told you so speeches, help in the redistricting fights and tutor young Democrats.
I do like the idea of Biden being a very public face for the Democrats in the absence of a more proper leader (president or presidential nominee).

Unless he decides to run in 2020 (I don't think this is super likely), his decision to abstain from the 2016 race lets him seem above the fray. Like, dude doesn't give a shit about being elected/re-elected and isn't just trying to save face for a disastrous presidential run. He just had a very successful vice presidency.

He's also just about the perfect counterbalance to Trump's strengths now, although what the electorate will want in 2020 could be very different (think how as someone mentioned here before John Edwards seemed like the perfect candidate on paper for 2008 after 2004, but clearly the nation was moving away from the Bush-era politics in both parties). But if he's not a candidate that's no problem - he can help lead a solid victory in 2018 and step aside once we have a nominee.

Obama can make appearances and rally in the sun belt states, states like NV, CO and VA that Clinton held onto with relative ease and AZ, GA, NC and maybe TX - states that are potentially moving in our direction. Biden's appeal is more broadly in the rust belt, PA, OH, MI, WI.

2020 presidential primary should depend on what happens in 2018 and honestly I hope we just get like ten or so decent candidates and see what happens. I think it's a lot harder to factionalize in a negative way like in 2016 when there's several legitimate candidates versus one very obvious frontrunner and one possible anti-frontrunner candidate, as we saw with Clinton and Sanders.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
At which point Seoul disappears from all our maps. There's no part of this situation that isn't scary.

I was going to say that you got Seoul confused with Pyongnang, but considering we have Trump, that could very well be the case as well.
 
I hate that Russia's communists are a bunch of nostalgic idiots who don't want to stop Putin's transformation of Russia into an authoritarian power but just change what party should be continuing the transformation. The collapse of USSR should have given them the perfect opportunity to get back to the basics of socialism unencumbered by all the things holding the USSR back, but instead they just want to repeat the past. They're reactionaries disguised as communists.



https://************/politics/374108-communists-want-return-of-state/ (Can't help it if RT is the one reporting it).

If they were really communists they'd be doing everything they could to undermine Putin, including violence. But they're happily chugging along the anti-West train as the controlled opposition.

Tbh, I attribute this more to the fact that if you're in the Russian Parliament, you are pro-Putin or else totally toothless by default. If you're neither of those, you end up dead in the street. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Russian communists outside of government were waxing nostalgic.

I was going to say that you got Seoul confused with Pyongnang, but considering we have Trump, that could very well be the case as well.

NK has enough artillery pointed at Seoul to flatten the city at more or less a moment's notice. Gonna be their first priority if hostilities break out.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

"It wasn't Donald Trump that divided this country, this country has been divided for a long time!" Stated today by Reverend Franklin Graham.

Surejan.gif

Trump made the rift greater.
 

UberTag

Member
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

"It wasn't Donald Trump that divided this country, this country has been divided for a long time!" Stated today by Reverend Franklin Graham.

Surejan.gif

Trump made the rift greater.
Not only that but he doubled-down and drove a rift between the United States and the rest of the world at the same time.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Proof Zuckerberg wants to be elected is his recent planted question where he said he now thinks faith is important, since he was previously atheist. Same shit Trump did.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Dawn of America's final day.

Wait. No. The lazy ass orange is taking the weekend off, so we have a weekend more. Then we're fucked.
 

dramatis

Member
Proof Zuckerberg wants to be elected is his recent planted question where he said he now thinks faith is important, since he was previously atheist. Same shit Trump did.
To be honest, I don't fault him for having the ambition.

Previously one would think the barriers to becoming president are far beyond most people's capabilities. But since Trump won, it's not surprising that a bunch of people would think, "If that bum could do it why can't I?" And the truth is that's really how it's been all along.


Also, regarding favorability numbers for Zuckerberg, yesterday I linked an article in which the author expects favorability of Silicon Valley to sink when 'automation taking away your jobs' catches on in the general population.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Would Trump's cabinet picks looked any different had the Democrats taken the Senate?

No.

Trump is staffing the government with businessmen If Dems had the senate, I am sure a lot of picks would get through becauase of history and blah blah blah we're fucked.

One day people will learn you can't run a fucking country like a business and treat its citizens like employees where only the white people get raises and health insurance and everyone else fights over the scraps.
 
Would Trump's cabinet picks looked any different had the Democrats taken the Senate?

To a degree. I can't see a democrat senate letting DeVos through, but I think most of his other picks would be safe except for Price due to the inside trading thing. Sessions would be tough but given that he's a senior senator I feel like he'd have a 50/50 shot.

Just about everyone else would get through IMO. The president gets to pick his cabinet. I think republican opposition (specifically Rubio and Graham) to Tillerson would be pretty quiet if democrats held the senate.
 

Blader

Member
To a degree. I can't see a democrat senate letting DeVos through, but I think most of his other picks would be safe except for Price due to the inside trading thing. Sessions would be tough but given that he's a senior senator I feel like he'd have a 50/50 shot.

Just about everyone else would get through IMO. The president gets to pick his cabinet. I think republican opposition (specifically Rubio and Graham) to Tillerson would be pretty quiet if democrats held the senate.

There are enough Senate Dems who like Sessions personally to turn him down. I don't think a Dem-majority Senate would've blocked his confirmation unless you had Senate phone lines blowing up with angry constituents.
 

Pixieking

Banned
From Nate Silver...

The Real Story Of 2016
What reporters — and lots of data geeks, too — missed about the election, and what they're still getting wrong.

There's a lot here, and whilst the up-down-up opinion of Silver means people can take it with a grain of salt, it's worth reading regardless.

What exactly, then, is the ”right" story for how Trump won the election? I obviously have a detailed perspective on this — but in a macroscopic view, the following elements seem essential:

First, the background conditions were pretty good for Trump.

[...]

Second, demographics gave Trump a big advantage in the Electoral College.

[...]

Third, voter preferences varied substantially based on news events, and the news cycle ended on a downturn for Clinton.

Fuuuuuu... Forgot to link it. Done that now. :p
 

studyguy

Member
Man Pod Save America is making some serious moves.
Also fuck Zuckerberg, dude is literally the worst of the Silicon Valley types.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom