• 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 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
BoogieWoogie said:
So hey AARP and all the other companies, hows about you just put money into democratic candidates and campaigns so we don't go through all this shit again?
Click to expand...

They don't want to be branded as a liberal organization, they're already having problems with that.

AARP used to be the largest lobby in Washington, and they aren't anymore, due in part to more conservative elderly special interest groups popping up.

Vixdean said:
If they are trying to bribe Murkowski that's a pretty good sign that either Rand or McCain aren't budging.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
F

Futurevoid

Member
BoogieWoogie said:
Murkowski has also been on record saying that if something were to pass that created safe harbor for Alaska, it wouldn't matter because fucking over the other states would eventually fuck them too regardless. She won't budge.
Click to expand...
She's already proven this is the case with the BCRA. They wrote in all kinds of Alaska money for her in that bill and she bulked and was a no anyways.

http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-health-care-bill-bcra-alaska-lisa-murkowski-2017-7
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
No way the Alaskan darling is going to flip to a yes for something that completely shuts out federal funding to her state in 8-9 years lol.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Tranqueris said:
That seems like the most useless bribe ever, if she votes no she gets to keep a better version of the ACA in her state anyway.
Click to expand...

The GOP is going on the poor assumption that Murkowski's constituents want the repeal and will hold her accountable for not repealing them. She knows they won't and she's in no danger of backlash if she votes no. Maybe that's the case in Arkansas or Alabama, but Alaska is a different sort of red state.

The people of Alaska wrote in her name over a tea party crazy. That's how much Alaska will not hold her accountable for voting no.

Alaska, as a heavy rural state, gets devastated by the repeal. And they appear to actually realize this.
 
B

BoogieWoogie

Banned
Looks like Moore out of Alabama is going to be another Rand Paul. Wouldn't vote for anything aside from full repeal:

DKQ_2KTWAAQpWgu.jpg


https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/910923231615488001
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
This feels like the week after the BCRA got a CBO score, with people dropping support and them getting desperate with bribes and stuff.

AND we don't even have a CBO score to chip more support away (yet)

Won't be long before Trump starts with the personal attacks on Twitter at this rate.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
The GOP is going on the poor assumption that Murkowski's constituents (and Murkowski, herself) want the repeal and will hold her accountable for not repealing them. She knows they won't and she's in no danger of backlash if she votes no. Maybe that's the case in Arkansas or Alabama, but Alaska is a different sort of red state.

The people of Alaska wrote in her name over a tea party crazy. That's how much Alaska will not hold her accountable for voting no.

Alaska, as a heavy rural state, gets devastated by the repeal.
Click to expand...

Why are Alaskans more cognizant of this than say Kentuckians? Both rural. Both largely conservative states. Both benefiting from the ACA. Kentucky gives us Paul and Turtle. Also why the fuck isn't Sullivan following suit? If Murkowski is hailed for such a move, wouldn't Sullivan stand to be negatively impacted by voting yes?
 
O

Ogodei

Member
Fenderputty said:
Why are Alaskans more cognizant of this than say Kentuckians? Both rural. Both largely conservative states. Both benefiting from the ACA. Kentucky gives us Paul and Turtle. Also why the fuck isn't Sullivan following suit? If Murkowski is hailed for such a move, wouldn't Sullivan stand to be negatively impacted by voting yes?
Click to expand...

Alaska isn't as big into white supremacy, basically. Its main exurban population center (the strip of land between Anchorage and Fairbanks) is conservative enough to keep the state reliably red, but the redness of the state is transitory due to a high contingent of oil workers, so it doesn't have the cultural baggage that Appalachia and Dixie have that wedge those voters into self-destruction.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Fenderputty said:
Why are Alaskans more cognizant of this than say Kentuckians? Both rural. Both largely conservative states. Both benefiting from the ACA. Kentucky gives us Paul and Turtle. Also why the fuck isn't Sullivan following suit? If Murkowski is hailed for such a move, wouldn't Sullivan stand to be negatively impacted by voting yes?
Click to expand...

At least in my experience, if a state has one senator that's really popular and more well known than the other, people tend to not really care or notice who their other senator is.

In NY, for example, I question how many people even realize who Gillibrand is, or care, compared to Schumer, who everyone knows. And there's example of places like Ohio or WV, which have one senator of each party, so there isn't necessarily unity between the two of them as far as voters are concerned.

He may just be floating under the radar. Alaska isn't really that red, there was a slight chance for it to vote blue in 2016, and it's very, very slowly inching more blue over time.
 
B

Blader

Member
Fenderputty said:
Why are Alaskans more cognizant of this than say Kentuckians? Both rural. Both largely conservative states. Both benefiting from the ACA. Kentucky gives us Paul and Turtle. Also why the fuck isn't Sullivan following suit? If Murkowski is hailed for such a move, wouldn't Sullivan stand to be negatively impacted by voting yes?
Click to expand...

I had a similar thought yesterday, but I guess Sullivan has a reliable Republican base he can fall back on no matter what he does to the state. Murkowski's base has more crossover with Is and Ds, so not voting like a moderate darling would be more harmful to her electoral chances. She can afford to buck basic Republican positions because she doesn't need only Republican voters.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Ogodei said:
Alaska isn't as big into white supremacy, basically. Its main exurban population center (the strip of land between Anchorage and Fairbanks) is conservative enough to keep the state reliably red, but the redness of the state is transitory due to a high contingent of oil workers, so it doesn't have the cultural baggage that Appalachia and Dixie have that wedge those voters into self-destruction.
Click to expand...

This makes sense.

balladofwindfishes said:
At least in my experience, if a state has one senator that's really popular and more well known than the other, people tend to not really care or notice who their other senator is.

In NY, for example, I question how many people even realize who Gillibrand is, or care, compared to Schumer, who everyone knows.

He may just be floating under the radar. Alaska isn't really that red, there was a slight chance for it to vote blue in 2016, and it's very, very slowly inching more blue over time.
Click to expand...

This seems wild to me. Not saying it isn't accurate, but dumbfounding non the less.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Fenderputty said:
This makes sense.



This seems wild to me. Not saying it isn't accurate, but dumbfounding non the less.
Click to expand...

Im actually glad you asked this. I've wondered that about Sullivan since the first Murkowski defection, and just assumed it was a stupid question.
 
K

Kusagari

Member
Murkowski would likely lose another primary if someone like Sullivan challenged her from the right.

Her being a "moderate darling" is integral to her survival at this point. The hardcore Republicans in the state don't like her and she survives off a base of moderate Republicans, Independents and Democrats.
 
R

Randolph Freelander

Member
Trump's good friend Duterte

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...son-will-be-killed-if-he-is-involved-in-drugs

The Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, has said he would have his son killed if drug trafficking allegations against the younger politician were true, and that the police who carry out the hit would be protected from prosecution.

Paolo Duterte, 42, appeared this month before a senate inquiry to deny accusations made by an opposition lawmaker that he was a member of a Chinese triad gang who helped smuggle in a huge shipment of crystal methamphetamine from China.

Duterte did not refer to the allegations specifically but reiterated his statement from last year’s election campaign that none of his children were involved in drugs, but they would face the harshest punishment if they were.

“I said before my order was: ‘If I have children who are into drugs, kill them so people will not have anything to say,’” Duterte said in a speech on Wednesday night in front of government workers at the presidential palace in Manila.

“So I told Pulong [Paolo’s nickname]: ‘My order is to kill you if you are caught. And I will protect the police who kill you, if it is true,’” he said.
Click to expand...
 
K

kirblar

Member
Kusagari said:
Murkowski would likely lose another primary if someone like Sullivan challenged her from the right.

Her being a "moderate darling" is integral to her survival at this point. The hardcore Republicans in the state don't like her and she survives off a base of moderate Republicans, Independents and Democrats.
Click to expand...
Yup. I think she'll flip to I in '18 or '20 if the Dems gain control in order to maintain influence.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Fenderputty said:
This seems wild to me. Not saying it isn't accurate, but dumbfounding non the less.
Click to expand...

"Just wondering, do you know our senators?"

"Chuck Schumer, why?"

"No, we have two senators, whose our other one"

"Robach?" (the only reason she even knows his name is because he was friends with my grandpa, at work)

"No, he's our state senator, whose our other federal senator"

"Uhh... the person who replaced Hillary?"

"Gillibrand, her name is Gillibrand. Umm... I don't really remember her first name though."

"Okay, why do I need to know this?"

"Idunno, just checking if you knew"

Paraphrased conversation between my mom and I awhile ago

Kind of hard to be the "other senator" when one is sucking all the air out of the room. lol
 
O

Ogodei

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
"Just wondering, do you know our senators?"

"Chuck Schumer, why?"

"No, we have two senators, whose our other one"

"Robach?"

"No, he's our state senator, whose our other federal senator" (the only reason she knows his name is because he was friends with my grandpa)

"Uhh... the person who replaced Hillary?"

"Gillibrand, her name is Gillibrand. Umm... I don't really remember her first name though."

"Okay, why do I need to know this?"

"Idunno, just checking if you knew"

Paraphrased conversation between my mom and I awhile ago

Kind of hard to be the "other senator" when one is sucking all the air out of the room. lol
Click to expand...

It only works in states that aren't split on partisan lines between the two senators, though.
 
B

Blader

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
"Just wondering, do you know our senators?"

"Chuck Schumer, why?"

"No, we have two senators, whose our other one"

"Robach?" (the only reason she even knows his name is because he was friends with my grandpa, at work)

"No, he's our state senator, whose our other federal senator"

"Uhh... the person who replaced Hillary?"

"Gillibrand, her name is Gillibrand. Umm... I don't really remember her first name though."

"Okay, why do I need to know this?"

"Idunno, just checking if you knew"

Paraphrased conversation between my mom and I awhile ago

Kind of hard to be the "other senator" when one is sucking all the air out of the room. lol
Click to expand...

I like Ed Markey, but Warren definitely casts a long long shadow over him.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Ogodei said:
It only works in states that aren't split on partisan lines between the two senators, though.
Click to expand...

It's really quite fascinating, though, when one senator is very famous and the other is just doing their job.

Warren and umm... uhhh... *googles" Markey!

Bernie Sanders and hmmm... errr... *googles* Leahy!

Booker and that other person I don't care enough to google

They could just fly under the radar and nobody would notice.

But yea, it doesn't work in states like Ohio. It also doesn't work when both are high profile senators, like Kentucky.
 
A

Armaros

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
The GOP is going on the poor assumption that Murkowski's constituents want the repeal and will hold her accountable for not repealing them. She knows they won't and she's in no danger of backlash if she votes no. Maybe that's the case in Arkansas or Alabama, but Alaska is a different sort of red state.

The people of Alaska wrote in her name over a tea party crazy. That's how much Alaska will not hold her accountable for voting no.

Alaska, as a heavy rural state, gets devastated by the repeal. And they appear to actually realize this.
Click to expand...

Also Murkowski's voters are completely different compared to the normal GOP voters even for Alaska.

She won reelection off of moderate republicans, independants, and even some democrats, abandoning them to go for the standard hard-line GOP voters is going to backfire hard.
 
K

Kevinroc

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
At least in my experience, if a state has one senator that's really popular and more well known than the other, people tend to not really care or notice who their other senator is.

In NY, for example, I question how many people even realize who Gillibrand is, or care, compared to Schumer, who everyone knows. And there's example of places like Ohio or WV, which have one senator of each party, so there isn't necessarily unity between the two of them as far as voters are concerned.

He may just be floating under the radar. Alaska isn't really that red, there was a slight chance for it to vote blue in 2016, and it's very, very slowly inching more blue over time.
Click to expand...

I wonder if this gets to Dianne Feinstein. She was first elected to the Senate in 1992, and is even the Senator with the most popular votes in a single election in 2012, and is currently the longest current serving female Senator, but she's been completely overshadowed by Kamala Harris.
 
R

Randolph Freelander

Member
Trump's other BFF Erdogan

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...urkeys-erdogan-as-a-friend-idUSKCN1BW2SJ?il=0

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday praised Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan as a friend despite tensions between the two countries over Turkish security officials involved in street fighting with protesters during a visit to Washington in May.

Meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump hailed Erdogan’s leadership in Turkey and said Erdogan “has become a friend of mine.”

“I think now we’re as close as we’ve ever been,” he said.

Eleven people were hurt in what Washington’s police chief described as a brutal attack on peaceful demonstrators outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence. Ankara blamed the violence on groups linked to Kurdish militants fighting an armed campaign in southeastern Turkey.
Click to expand...
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Blader said:
Does Bernie do better in 2020 because he has the name recognition and has already locked down a core base of support? Or does he do worse because the anti-Hillary/anti-establishment vote on the left consolidated around him as the only not-Hillary choice provided in the last primary and the next primary will be nothing but not-Hillarys?
Click to expand...
If the order of the states were different I think the second choice would be very likely

But the first two are New Hampshire and Iowa. Who is better positioned to win these states than him? I don't think Harris and Gillibrand will be able to pull it off. Franken or Brown or someone would have to get in.. maybe Klobuchar actually I think could do well there. But it's hard to say he'll fall off much in support if he is well positioned to win the first two contests
 
K

kirblar

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
If the order of the states were different I think the second choice would be very likely

But the first two are New Hampshire and Iowa. Who is better positioned to win these states than him? I don't think Harris and Gillibrand will be able to pull it off. Franken or Brown or someone would have to get in.. maybe Klobuchar actually I think could do well there. But it's hard to say he'll fall off much in support if he is well positioned to win the first two contests
Click to expand...
The Democratic primaries are a marathon, not a sprint. We don't have the winner-take-all rules that the GOP does that allowed Trump to steamroll everyone out (thank god) and with Dems indicating they want someone new and Bernie being very unlikely to fix his issues in the South, I would gladly put any amount of money on "The Field" vs Sanders in a hypothetical 2020 matchup.
 
R

royalan

Member
kirblar said:
The Democratic primaries are a marathon, not a sprint. We don't have the winner-take-all rules that the GOP does that allowed Trump to steamroll everyone out (thank god) and with Dems indicating they want someone new and Bernie being very unlikely to fix his issues in the South, I would gladly put any amount of money on "The Field" vs Sanders in a hypothetical 2020 matchup.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't see Bernie doing much to blunt the ass whooping the South would serve him a second time.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Assuming the not Bernies don't split the south between one another it seems hard to see how he consolidates the delegates. That's always been the real issue and if he actually wants to run needs to be doing something to connect more with older black America

It's going to be a shitshow when the press keep pestering Obama for endorsements for candidates.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
kirblar said:
The Democratic primaries are a marathon, not a sprint. We don't have the winner-take-all rules that the GOP does that allowed Trump to steamroll everyone out (thank god) and with Dems indicating they want someone new and Bernie being very unlikely to fix his issues in the South, I would gladly put any amount of money on "The Field" vs Sanders in a hypothetical 2020 matchup.
Click to expand...
I think it's possible his numbers will improve in the south just by him being in a better position now I think he'll be able to hire advisers that are not complete morons. But yeah if he doesn't improve there at all it's unlikely he could win outright. But there is hope I suppose for him that his favorability numbers amongst black voters are much much higher than the votes he actually got. There is room for him to better translate that into actual votes next time but he just needs to not be an idiot or be advised by the island of misfit toys

Also it wasn't just the margins in the south that killed him last time, it was he was losing where he should have won as well. Is there anyone that can run up the numbers in the south and beat him in places like Massachusetts, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc.?? .. even states he won though he didn't get much in regards to the margins like Michigan. He'll need to actually run up the numbers in places he's favorable in which I think he'll be better positioned to do next time
 
K

kirblar

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
I think it's possible his numbers will improve in the south just by him being in a better position now I think he'll be able to hire advisers that are not complete morons. But yeah if he doesn't improve there at all it's unlikely he could win outright. But there is hope I suppose for him that his favorability numbers amongst black voters are much much higher than the votes he actually got. There is room for him to better translate that into actual votes next time but he just needs to not be an idiot or be advised by the island of misfit toys

Also it wasn't just the margins in the south that killed him last time, it was he was losing where he should have won as well. Is there anyone that can run up the numbers in the south and beat him in places like Massachusetts, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc.?? .. even states he won though he didn't get much in regards to the margins like Michigan. He'll need to actually run up the numbers in places he's favorable in which I think he'll be better positioned to do next time
Click to expand...
The fundamental issue w/ Bernie's numbers in the south is that fixing his issues there is actually really easy - Elizabeth Warren talks about social/economic justice issues in a way that intertwines both.

But Bernie is very old, very stubborn, and has shown no sign through any of the past two years that he'd be able to learn and adapt to actually play to win, rather than play to lose and complain about the rules afterward.

He ran even 1:1 on white voters w/ Hillary and got killed 3:1 with black voters. That's the fundamental issue he has in the south (and the one that leads people to sideeye articles like that one attacking Harris/Patrick/Booker.)
 
A

Atomic Playboy

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
At least in my experience, if a state has one senator that's really popular and more well known than the other, people tend to not really care or notice who their other senator is.

In NY, for example, I question how many people even realize who Gillibrand is, or care, compared to Schumer, who everyone knows. And there's example of places like Ohio or WV, which have one senator of each party, so there isn't necessarily unity between the two of them as far as voters are concerned.

He may just be floating under the radar. Alaska isn't really that red, there was a slight chance for it to vote blue in 2016, and it's very, very slowly inching more blue over time.
Click to expand...

Based on my own assumptions with absolutely no concrete data to back it up, I would guess that roughly 70% of the Portland Metro area thinks our Senators are Wyden and Blumenauer (Blumenauer is a Representative). Jeff Merkley is definitely not talked about to the same degree.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
kirblar said:
The fundamental issue w/ Bernie's numbers in the south is that fixing his issues there is actually really easy - Elizabeth Warren talks about social/economic justice issues in a way that intertwines both.

But Bernie is very old, very stubborn, and has shown no sign through any of the past two years that he'd be able to learn and adapt to actually play to win, rather than play to lose and complain about the rules afterward.

He ran even 1:1 on white voters w/ Hillary and got killed 3:1 with black voters. That's the fundamental issue he has in the south (and the one that leads people to sideeye articles like that one attacking Harris/Patrick/Booker.)
Click to expand...

You are probably correct in your assessment of him but I just would like to believe he won't be stubborn and he does make changes if he chooses to run. If he doesn't have interest in changing I think it would be better if he did not run again to begin with. But for now I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he runs and ends up just rehiring Jeff Weaver again I'll concede you are correct about him.

However to the second point I yhink it's unlikely anyone will be able to simulataniously run 1:1 with white voters and 3:1 with black voters like Hillary did next time.

I think the " he woulda beat trump" narrative will be successful at sway a lot of the white voters who may have agreed with him but chose Hillary due to electability next time. If he runs 1.5:1 or 2:1 with white voters against whoever he's running against I think that changes the dynamics entirely.
 
R

royalan

Member
If Bernie had any interest in changing he wouldn't be slamming "identity politics" at every opportunity. He's really made no effort to reach out to those voters he lost, and next time he'll be running against minority candidates AND candidates who will have done the work to court those voters.

I'm still not altogether convinced he's running and not just soaking up the attention he's getting by leaving the question out there. But if he does run...the South will tan his ass again. Issa no.
 
K

kirblar

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
You are probably correct in your assessment of him but I just would like to believe he won't be stubborn and he does make changes if he chooses to run. If he doesn't have interest in changing I think it would be better if he did not run again to begin with. But for now I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he runs and ends up just rehiring Jeff Weaver again I'll concede you are correct about him.

However to the second point I yhink it's unlikely anyone will be able to simulataniously run 1:1 with white voters and 3:1 with black voters like Hillary did next time.

I think the " he woulda beat trump" narrative will be successful at sway a lot of the white voters who may have agreed with him but chose Hillary due to electability next time. If he runs 1.5:1 or 2:1 with white voters against whoever he's running against I think that changes the dynamics entirely.
Click to expand...
What has he done to earn that benefit though?
 
K

Kusagari

Member
I don't think Bernie will ever be able to win a drawn out 1vs1 primary. His best chance is for at least two of the Gillibrand, Kamala, Booker trio to exchange victories and survive for an extended period of time, while mitigating his losses in the South. He's never going to do good in the South or among black voters in a primary, but I do think he'll improve on his disastrous results simply because he's a known and well-liked quantity now. Opinion polls don't seem to show black voters actually disliking him or being more unfavorable toward him than the public at large.
 
B

Blader

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
If the order of the states were different I think the second choice would be very likely

But the first two are New Hampshire and Iowa. Who is better positioned to win these states than him? I don't think Harris and Gillibrand will be able to pull it off. Franken or Brown or someone would have to get in.. maybe Klobuchar actually I think could do well there. But it's hard to say he'll fall off much in support if he is well positioned to win the first two contests
Click to expand...

Isn't California looking to push up its primary much earlier? That would give a Harris a huge boost pretty early on, if so.
 
M

Maengun1

Member
Kusagari said:
Do people in Michigan know Gary Peters exists?

Because he's easily the most forgettable Democrat Senator for me.
Click to expand...

I do, but no one else does lol. Although I've met him so

Peters being elected as (I think?) the ONLY freshman dem elected to national office IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY in the 2014 red wave was the main reason I was so confident in my state last year. We elected the most boring dem ever in an anti-dem slaugher -- by like 15 points -- and now we're gonna vote for Trump??? Yeahno. Alas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom