• 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.
My biggest question with Bernie is, is he going to surround himself with a bunch of chowder heads next time.

Due to his better name recognition I’d say he’d have more options, specifically in the dem party for surrogates and campaign leaders etc, but I’d be fucking sweating walking into a general with a candidate who’s right hand dude is Jeff Weaver

Not that I think it will be possible to be dumber than Mook was last time but still
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
My biggest question with Bernie is, is he going to surround himself with a bunch of chowder heads next time.

Due to his better name recognition I’d say he’d have more options, specifically in the dem party for surrogates and campaign leaders etc, but I’d be fucking sweating walking into a general with a candidate who’s right hand dude is Jeff Weaver

Not that I think it will be possible to be dumber than Mook was last time but still

I'm sure Weaver could find a way to be worse, I mean he did lose to Mook after all.
 
My biggest question with Bernie is, is he going to surround himself with a bunch of chowder heads next time.

Due to his better name recognition I’d say he’d have more options, specifically in the dem party for surrogates and campaign leaders etc, but I’d be fucking sweating walking into a general with a candidate who’s right hand dude is Jeff Weaver

Not that I think it will be possible to be dumber than Mook was last time but still

My guess is he can attract better talent this time and there'll be pressure like there was with Hillary not to hire Mark Penn.
 

pigeon

Banned
My guess is he can attract better talent this time and there'll be pressure like there was with Hillary not to hire Mark Penn.

And so instead she hired the second string Clintonites.

I really don’t want Bernie to just hire Warner and his crew again but I think the odds are very high he will.

Edit: I meant weaver but he literally sucked so much I forgot his name
 
sorry Brownites, I'm a Merkley Man now

MERKLEY-Sanders-Bird.jpg

future president and Bernie Sanders
 

Tamanon

Banned
It's a pretty obvious pattern. Calls the family the day of/after being chided on it by the press. Sends the check the day it comes up.
 
Brown is probably one of the best general candidates, but I don’t think he’ll even run. He’d have a better chance of winning Ohio than anyone else in the field and be better positioned to flip back Michigan and Wisconsin
 

kirblar

Member
Cross-posting from one of the Trump/Russia threads on this because this is going to be getting a lot of traction as people dive into this -


Mother Jones Summary: http://www.motherjones.com/politics...igation-about-a-kremlin-linked-troll-factory/

Original Source (in Russian) http://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/17/10/2017/59e0c17d9a79470e05a9e6c1?from=center_1

A notorious Russian internet “troll factory” spent about $2.3 million during the 2016 election cycle to meddle in US politics, paying the salaries of 90 “US desk” employees who helped wage disinformation campaigns via social media that reached millions of Americans. The operation also contacted US activists directly and offered them thousands of dollars to organize protests on divisive issues, including race relations.

These revelations and many more came out in an investigation published on Tuesday by the Russian newspaper RBC about the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a tech firm based in St. Petersburg, Russia, that has developed a specialty in spreading pro-Kremlin messages in the West.

The IRA has been written about before by a number of news outlets, and by RBC itself. But this latest piece from RBC—a respected business newspaper in Russia known for angering the Kremlin with its reporting on Putin’s associates—is the first to home in on the IRA’s operations during the 2016 US election.
By the middle of 2015, as the US election was ramping up, the IRA’s staffing had increased to between 800 and 900 people. The organization had also shored up its arsenal of media tools to include “videos, infographics, memes, reporting, news, analytical materials,” and more.

In spring 2015, a number of IRA staffers held an experiment to see if they could successfully organize a live event in the US from behind their computer screens in St. Petersburg. They did this by targeting New Yorkers on Facebook and attempting to lure them to a specific event where they would receive a free hot dog. There were no actual hot dogs, but enough people showed up at the specified location to make the agency deem the experiment a success. “From this day, almost a year and a half before the election of the US President,” writes RBC, “the ‘trolls’ began full-fledged work in American society.”

Within the next year, the staff of the IRA’s “American Department” grew threefold, increasing to between 80 and 90 people—about one-tenth of the entire agency.

Three former employees of the IRA told RBC that the head of the American Department is a 27-year-old Azerbaijani man named Dzeihun Aslan, a point also corroborated by an internal Telegram chat obtained by RBC. (Aslan denied any such involvement in conversation with RBC.)

By RBC’s calculations, the American Department spent about $1 million annually on salaries. The lowest-level employees were paid about 55,000 rubles ($960) per month, but also received bonuses based on “the reactions of participants in communities” they were targeting.

RBC identified 118 Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts linked to the IRA’s meddling in US politics.

In September 2016, at the height of the US election season, the American Department posted more than 1,000 pieces of content per week, reaching between 20 and 30 million people that month.

A source close to the leaders of the IRA told RBC that most of the agency’s American content had less to do with supporting a specific candidate than with promoting volatile social issues that happened to dovetail with Trump’s rhetoric. “There was no directive to ‘support Trump,'” one source told RBC. “Direct connections were drawn between societal problems and the actions of the ruling party at that time [the Democrats]. Hillary [Clinton] is the party’s representative, which means she’s also to blame.”

RBC analyzed hundreds of IRA posts and found that Clinton was mentioned in the posts much more often than Trump.

The total budget for promoting political ads to American audiences came to about $5,000 a month, or about $120,000 from June 2015 to May 2017. About half of that was spent on content aimed at sowing racial divisions.

The IRA spent about $80,000 to support 100 US activists who organized 40 different protests across the United States.
That last part is a big one. The GOP has been astrotufing for ages, but direct foreign interference w/ live protests like that is a big step up from the cyber-stuff.
 
Some nuggets from that Fox News poll:

88% of Northam voters certain they'll vote him. 83% of Gillespie voters say the same.

Gillespie leads:

White evangelical Christians: 81-13
Whites w/o college degree: 65-29
Gun Households: 57-35

Northam leads:

Non-whites: 81-6
Voters under 45: 57-30
NoVA voters: 57-32

Gillespie leads with men by 4, Northam leads with women by 17.

91% of Clinton voters back Northam, 3% for Gillespie. 90% of Trump voters back Gillespie, 4% back Northam. Still 6% on both sides that haven't made up their mind.

Northam gets 92% of Democrats while Gillespie gets 89% of Republicans.

Independents backs Northam by 14%.

On issues:

Economy: Gillespie +1
Confederate monuments: Northam +2
Guns: Northam +3
Immigration: Northam +3
Energy: Northam +3
Health care: Northam +10
Education: Northam +10

Prioritizing stopping gun violence over guns rights: 49/43

50% live in a household with a gun. Northam leads the non-gun owning household by 42%.

Obama favorables: 57/40
Trump favorables: 41/55 (49% STRONG unfavorable)
Northam favorables: 52/34
Gillespie favorables: 50/38
 

DTC

Member
I kinda doubt that Sherrod is running. I've heard his wife doesn't want him to run, and who the hell knows who's going to win the 2020 dem primaries. But he'd be a great candidate. I love Kamala too but I feel like the American public won't like her as much :(

Sherrod / Harris or Bullock / Harris would both be pretty strong tickets.
 

Holmes

Member
I kinda doubt that Sherrod is running. I've heard his wife doesn't want him to run, and who the hell knows who's going to win the 2020 dem primaries. But he'd be a great candidate. I love Kamala too but I feel like the American public won't like her as much :(

Sherrod / Harris or Bullock / Harris would both be pretty strong tickets.
I thought it was that she didn't want him to be VP
 
Cross-posting from one of the Trump/Russia threads on this because this is going to be getting a lot of traction as people dive into this -


Mother Jones Summary: http://www.motherjones.com/politics...igation-about-a-kremlin-linked-troll-factory/

Original Source (in Russian) http://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/17/10/2017/59e0c17d9a79470e05a9e6c1?from=center_1



That last part is a big one. The GOP has been astrotufing for ages, but direct foreign interference w/ live protests like that is a big step up from the cyber-stuff.

Huh. I know this mentions 2015 but there have been a couple of fake "Pizza Day / Burger Day" NYC events on Facebook recently. And a bunch of people turned up.
 

Allard

Member
Connie didn't want Sherrod to be Hillary's VP because then Kasich would've appointed a Republican to fill out the rest of Sherrod's term.

Agreed and unless he plans to retire whether he wins the presidency or not, I don't think Sherrod Brown should run for that reason alone. He seems to be the one remaining bright spot in democratic politics in that state, I fear the uphill battle would be to replace him in the senate. Can we please stop trying to poach otherwise vulnerable seats, Dems have enough electorate problems as is in the senate since its based on states and not population.
 
Agreed and unless he plans to retire whether he wins the presidency or not, I don't think Sherrod Brown should run for that reason alone. He seems to be the one remaining bright spot in democratic politics in that state, I fear the uphill battle would be to replace him in the senate. Can we please stop trying to poach otherwise vulnerable seats, Dems have enough electorate problems as is in the senate since its based on states and not population.

I mean, I would be okay with Hillary being president right now with a Sherrod Brown VP and a Republican senate, given the alternative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom