-
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 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
Box of Kittens
Banned
In this case I'm talking about the AHCA/BCRA/skinny repeal rather than a hypothetical bill. My broader point though is that of course they are always going to be litmus tests. If David Duke were to run as a Democrat, I would be downright angry if the party did not come out and condemn his candidacy in the strongest terms. We can legitimately argue what should and should not be a litmus/purity test, but "no litmus tests" is a non-starter.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Because the problem with Patrick and Bain is entirely messaging, and Obama is naive when it comes to that. He probably thinks his endorsement will make any issues to away.
RumbleHumble
Banned
It's a move that plays directly to all the conspiracy theory bullshit and what aboutisms that helped no one in 2016.
whyamihere
Banned
Worked in the 2016 election!
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's never a question of "no litmus tests" and more "what litmus tests are worth having."
VendettaRed07
Member
Obama is a lot like the political MJ
Great player himself. Terrible eye for talent. His six championship rings didn't stop him from using the first pick on Kwame Brown etc.
Great player himself. Terrible eye for talent. His six championship rings didn't stop him from using the first pick on Kwame Brown etc.
Very much agree with this.
whyamihere
Banned
Anyways, there will be no invisible primary in 2020 and if Obama didn't jump in the primary to help Hillary in 2016, he sure as shit isn't jumping in to help Patrick in 2020.
So he can push him to run all he wants, but this is a terrible idea. Booooo.
So he can push him to run all he wants, but this is a terrible idea. Booooo.
Which is why he doesn't.
A shame, too. He's the version of Cory Booker that isn't a total sleazebag.
Prof. Bathtub
Member
Setti Warren though.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Randolph Freelander
Member
If Bernie Bros aren't over Hillary by now, they deserve Trump.
Sucks for the rest of us, though.
Sucks for the rest of us, though.
Poodlestrike
Banned
The Bain thing being an issue is deeply stupid, but I do agree that an issue it remains. If Patrick runs, he'd need to do it entirely solo; any hint of interference on the part of Obamaworld in his favor would make the Sanders contingent go absolutely apeshit. If he can win, by himself, despite the Bain baggage, that's... probably okay.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Now I'm wondering if there was any truth to the rumor that Obama wanted Biden to run in 2016 under the condition that Patrick was his VP.
Can we trade aspects of candidates we don't like to other candidates? Booker now works at Bain Capital, Patrick is clean as a whistle, whee
Can we trade aspects of candidates we don't like to other candidates? Booker now works at Bain Capital, Patrick is clean as a whistle, whee
VERY EARLY 2008 MIDTERM FORECAST
A statistician created a model to estimate midterm election results using district-specific data combined with evolving national sentiment/opinions.
Inputting the current House generic 'D' or 'R' ballot polls, the model currently predicts a Democrat gain of just 2 seats.
Full thread here: https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/892424547181395968
Summarized notes:
A statistician created a model to estimate midterm election results using district-specific data combined with evolving national sentiment/opinions.
Inputting the current House generic 'D' or 'R' ballot polls, the model currently predicts a Democrat gain of just 2 seats.
Full thread here: https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/892424547181395968
Summarized notes:
- The model is early and preliminary, a lot will change between now and November 2018.
- Tthis model, used on house races since 1972, predicted Democrats outcome with 4% error on average.
- Model was off by 2% (7 seats) average in 2014 and 2016 elections.
- If House districts held their current properties (they won't), Democrats would need ~58% of the two-party vote to flip the House.
- National environment and the model will change, this is all preliminary work.
- This model adjusts itself to variables such as: who decides to run for office, donation money, and political climate.
- In 2018, Ds have the most disadvantageous map they've ever had.
- Democrats aren't as far ahead as you think.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Do you think all pro-life women are sexist against their own gender? Or are they just stupid, brainwashed by sexist men?
And why don't they follow up that bullshit with questions along the lines of "why does the president feel that police brutality is something to joke about?"
Are the black people that go on Fox News and spout dumb-ass opinions about law enforcement and the justice system racist? Or stupid?
Certain policies are just objectively racist. Or sexist. Or xenophobic.
And the list goes on.
I think they're sexist against their own gender, obviously. If you think people can't be willingly part of a system of oppression that oppresses them, you're really confused.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Aaron Strife
Banned
After last year, I think anytime baggage is countered with "Do voters even remember...?" we should just automatically assume yes they'll remember!
I think there is a big difference between "I want Deval Patrick to become president" and "I want Deval Patrick to run for president." The article even mentions that Obama is encouraging others to run. He wants a big field for 2020. That doesn't mean he thinks every single one of those candidates is equally likely to win the nomination and the GE. Obviously that's never true.
I don't think Deval can win the nomination, but I wouldn't necessarily say that he should never run. If he has something to add to the conversation, then he should add it.
...is going to get crushed next year.
whyamihere
Banned
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Genuine question because I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I'm trying to actually understand other people's perspective.
Do you believe (a significant number of) pro-life advocates actually believe abortion is murder?
Why are you all surprised?
The American "left" had its test last year, and failed miserably to show up once the party platform swung their way.
This is the consequence -- the party adjusts to who shows up on both sides of the aisle.
These people are too busy stanning for Maduro at this point -- just look at the protypical Boney in the Venezuela thread.
These are not reliable voters, and it's a trap to go after them IMO. They will find another test the candidate doesn't pass.
The American "left" had its test last year, and failed miserably to show up once the party platform swung their way.
This is the consequence -- the party adjusts to who shows up on both sides of the aisle.
These people are too busy stanning for Maduro at this point -- just look at the protypical Boney in the Venezuela thread.
These are not reliable voters, and it's a trap to go after them IMO. They will find another test the candidate doesn't pass.
This is about Patrick being exposed to literally the exact same line of attack in the primaries as Hillary was, because neither of them are behaving in a way you'd expect someone with further aspirations to be behaving career-wise after leaving office.
It was a big problem for Hillary and it'd be a big problem for Patrick, even moreso in an actual multiway primary filled w/ people like Booker, Harris, Gillibrand, etc. who don't have that issue.
Of course they do. So what?
Here's my question for you: what exactly do you gain by apologizing for pro-lifers? (I'm assuming you're not pro-life yourself) How does that help advance pro-choice policies?
balladofwindfishes
Member
Generic R and Generic D are not candidates on any ballot.
I always love when these things throw stuff like this in. It happens every single time. Every election these math guys come out of the woodwork with their formula that hasn't been wrong in 40 years and then suddenly it's very wrong.
Citation needed
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
The obvious followup question is this:
Imagine if you believed abortion is murder. Why would you then decide that another person's rights override the fact that murder is wrong?
The debate is whether or not abortion is murder. That's the only debate. If you believe it is, nothing else matters. You aren't allowed to murder people. If you don't believe it is, then of course a woman's right to choose is more important.
And no, I am not pro-life. I am pro-abortion. I want more abortions, more birth control, less kids in general especially to families who don't want them. But my point is that the left always wants to turn this issue into one about economics or equality. For the people you're arguing with, that's not what the argument is about. No matter what you say, their response will always be "But it is morally wrong." If you're not arguing why abortion isn't wrong, you are literally wasting your time.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
I follow my news from Twitter and had no idea Trump is speaking right now.
Trump is describing an off the record conversation he had with the Foxconn CEO. Says hes not supposed to talk about it.
https://twitter.com/grynbaum/status/892464754605817857
Trump is describing an off the record conversation he had with the Foxconn CEO. Says hes not supposed to talk about it.
https://twitter.com/grynbaum/status/892464754605817857
whyamihere
Banned
We already know it's more-than-likely that Dems will pick up the open FL-27 district. So now Dems, with a genetic ballot lead of 7.8%, are only going to pick up one more seat?
k.
k.
balladofwindfishes
Member
You want me to find random math dudes who pop up every election with their crazy new formula that hasn't ever been wrong, but is then inexplicably wrong that one year anyone bothered paying attention?
I can't remember any off the top of my head, but there must be zillions of them by now. They pop up all the time, especially last year, since everyone thought that was an "easy" prediction.
Poodlestrike
Banned
whyamihere
Banned
It's exactly like the gerrymandering study that ended up being super hurtful in court cases even today!
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think house candidates in particular are asked to make promises and take positions on issues they will never need to be accountable on precisely because the leadership determines what comes up for a vote. I think this is a place where a lot of slack between what the national base wants and what the general election electorate in a given district wants can be reconciled. That's what I'm suggesting. I'm not even really suggesting candidates lie or change their positions, I'm suggesting they strategically emphasize and de-emphasize and modulate and I'm generally okay with that. To wit, I don't think Obama was actually against same-sex marriage in the first two years of his presidency.
No, I think Democrats need only say "We support reproductive rights" and "We oppose white supremacy". You don't advertise your brand by pointing out that there's some heterogeneity from place to place. It's on Manchin to explain where he breaks from the Democrats to achieve support and satisfaction in West Virginia, it's on Pelosi (or preferably someone new) to explain the big vision of what the party will do when it takes back the house.
Pelosi became speaker the first time on the back of the "First Hundred Hours" pledge: Raise the minimum wage, lift bans on stem cell research, Medicare drug price negotiation, pay-as-you-go spending regulations, lobbying reforms, and whatever the other thing was, I'm sure I'm missing one or two.
Stem cells are an example of a something that I guess is most directly comparable to the abortion vote. 16 Democrats voted against the Stem cell bill. It's not the end of the world that they did and it's not like that sent a mixed message to constituents about where the party stood, any more than Collins and Murkowski are causing Republican voters to be unclear on where the party leadership stands on the ACA.
I don't think the source of "Democrats may allow people to, in theory, be pro-life and be candidates" is a public-focused message. I think it's a beltway insider messaging thing that to the extent it actually reflects a policy change is designed for candidate recruitment. I think the public message will continue to be that the Democratic party is committed to preserving women's access to reproductive help and in opposition to TRAP laws. The context has changed a lot since the 90s, and really post-2006 there's no question where the party lies on the issues.
What I was attempting to say is that I think there exists a range of positions on abortion that are both a) short of the party's public position on abortion, b) palatable to moderate or conservative districts, and c) not likely to result in policy retrenchment on the subject. To the extent a candidate wishes to message accordingly, even if it comes out as being something that people perceive as "anti-abortion" or "pro-life", I'm less troubled. And I think interest groups and the leadership should figure out a mutually beneficial process to accommodate this without giving away policy concessions.
Biden actually has a bizarrely conservative voting record on abortion. I was really shocked a few years ago when I was going through old rollcalls and, like, it's not just that Biden was a moderate ideologically to begin with, this is a particular issue that he departed from the party on in a conservative direction. He seems to have moved left on the issue since becoming VP (and in his last few years as senator, particularly post-2006) and he's obviously a very sincere guy in how he presents himself so I assume he has the valence to convince people he has genuinely moved left, but his earlier voting record is really not what I would have thought it was. His public statements are considerably more liberal than his voting record as well, so it won't be immediately obvious if you Google it.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Even accepting the idea that Obama is so naturally gifted that he has trouble actually determining who is and isn't a good candidate (and I think it is true) it still amazes me that he would be so tone deaf as to think a candidate with Bain Capital on his resume would fly with today's electorate when he used that very thing to successfully define Mitt Romney in 2012. Like, it would seem like he has to recognize it's a problem when he used it as a line of attack and, if anything, it's a bigger problem for voters now than it was in 2012.
This is a pretty good demonstration of why, despite being a very good president, Obama is a pretty bad party leader.
This is a pretty good demonstration of why, despite being a very good president, Obama is a pretty bad party leader.
whyamihere
Banned
I'm actually bearish on us getting the House, but like, do we have to post every Random Math Dude who made a Surefire Model! that isn't actually proven to be predictive?
Polls cited by 538 include options for "Other" and/or "Not Sure" and/or "I would not vote".
When only 'D' or 'R' appears on ballot the lead shrinks.
But how do you square this kind of hedging to moderates, with this?
Ignoring women's fundamental freedoms and equality to win elections is both an ethically and politically bankrupt strategy.
I stopped counting long ago each time I have to defend a constitutional right that I was brought up to believe was sacrosanct to Democrats. Expressing my outrage, every time, is unproductive and personally exhausting. I have in the intervening years learned about the history of Democratic tolerance and how it ebbs and flows with cyclical elections.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/5/25/15681240/democrats-pro-choice-abortion-trump
This is your base (that's the president of NARAL). If you don't have them, you have nothing.
I had a few on my Facebook last year and what I didn't understand until earlier this year is that many of them were actually absorbing fake news about Hillary at higher rates than Trumpets. Reposting it and so on. Sadly now that they realize they've been had they're all, "Well it doesn't matter because she was a TURRIBLE candidate" non stop. You see it here on gaf, too.
Basically they got suckered, "but it doesn't matter anyway because reasons."
So they're smarter than trumpets, but too embarrassed to change their minds. Team mentality is the worst.
whyamihere
Banned
balladofwindfishes
Member
We're going to win all the seats. All of them. It'll be 100% Democrats and Trump as president in the federal government. Even the senators not even up for election will lose.
My math model that's been accurate every year except 1948, 1986, 1994, 2006, 2008, 2016 and four special elections in 2017 has told me this to be without a doubt 100% fully accurate.
My math model that's been accurate every year except 1948, 1986, 1994, 2006, 2008, 2016 and four special elections in 2017 has told me this to be without a doubt 100% fully accurate.
There's no need to get worked up or start shouting. I'm perfectly fine with being wrong and learning. Got a good link or search term to share so I can read how it really works?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
No one votes in midterm elections.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
(To be fair, that "keys" professor whose model predicted 40 years of presidential elections or whatever actually called it for Trump last year. But yes these guys with retrofitted math show up every cycle.)
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
He called Trump winning the popular vote.
- Status