Support NeoGAF

[Dubbedinenglish]

I want to talk about how Lincoln Chaffee was robbed.

 

[Fenderputty]

There was one when it was announced wasn't it?
I assumed discussion would go in there, I'm personally not going to bother till I finish reading it when it gets in. At the very minimum should be somewhat worthwhile to pull from the experience off the massive campaign, failures and all.

Feinstein's weighing in.
https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/907680211822620675

I don't like that frame of reasoning though I understand it. The costs of single payer aren't eany more enormous (less so actually) than what we're currently paying out of our pockets.

She understands America's reflexive attitudes towards taxation though so she supports a public option. Which I would support as well. Another baby step on the way to UHC and an eventual single payer system.

 

[pigeon]

I'm so tired of Feinstein.

California can support a much more liberal senator.

 

[Fenderputty]

I feel like California gets treated as though we're a state entirely made up of SF and LA cities. We're not. We just voted to speed up the death penalty. We vote blue, mostly because Latinos in our state have been burned by the GOP, but we're not THAT liberal. Legal pot was kicked out here on it's first pass. We passed prop 8.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

That should have been readily apparent with opioid/heroin addiction coverage in particular. Most Midwest states affected are shown in a light of compassion and understanding vs minorities in inner cities with the same exact issue being shown as victim to vices they should have avoided.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep. (and in Maine, a state that's 99% white, it's still the minorities fault, according to racist fucknut LePage)

 

[Aaron Strife]

I feel like California gets treated as though we're a state entirely made up of SF and LA cities. We're not. We just voted to speed up the death penalty. We vote blue, mostly because Latinos in our state have been burned by the GOP, but we're not THAT liberal. Legal pot was kicked out here on it's first pass. We passed prop 8.

That speaks nothing of the odds for a Democrat vs. Republican matchup though. A more liberal Democrat than Feinstein would still win election easily.

Like don't throw an alt-green party nutjob against her, but there's no shortage of qualified Democrats who would do a better job.

 

[pigeon]

I feel like California gets treated as though we're a state entirely made up of SF and LA cities. We're not. We just voted to speed up the death penalty. We vote blue, mostly because Latinos in our state have been burned by the GOP, but we're not THAT liberal. Legal pot was kicked out here on it's first pass. We passed prop 8.

I mean, I agree that California is secretly infiltrated by white supremacists, but that doesn't change the fact that the Democratic voters that control California should stop being complacent and allowing dumb stuff to pass, like Dianne Feinstein not getting primaried.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Watching you talking about primarying establishment Democrats is giving me a small frisson of glee.

More, more! Tell me about how you plan to oust Tom Carper next!

 

[pigeon]

Watching you talking about primarying establishment Democrats is giving me a small frisson of glee.

More, more! Tell me about how you plan to oust Tom Carper next!

You're making it weird.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You're making it weird.

Okay, we'll keep a little bit of establishment then.

 

[studyguy]

I feel like California gets treated as though we're a state entirely made up of SF and LA cities. We're not. We just voted to speed up the death penalty. We vote blue, mostly because Latinos in our state have been burned by the GOP, but we're not THAT liberal. Legal pot was kicked out here on it's first pass. We passed prop 8.

Aye, people will definitely just say we can primary everyone in the state nbd since we're blue af when in reality there's a ton of high profile republicans sitting incumbent.

One district over from me is Steve Knight, gigantic asshole Trump supporter, but considering that's Simi Valley's district, it's hard to boot that moron. Gonna be walking those streets and knocking on doors come 2018 though.

Same for Rohrabacher. Guy has been in the headlines for fucking ages now, from my own state. His favorable aren't awful. Take a stroll into the central valley and you might as well be in deep red republican states. It's not all gravy, we're fortunate for our coastal cities and the democratic majority, but a lot of districts are a stone's throw away from an R district.

 

[pigeon]

Aye, people will definitely just say we can primary everyone in the state nbd since we're blue af when in reality there's a ton of high profile republicans sitting incumbent.

One district over from me is Steve Knight, gigantic asshole Trump supporter, but considering that's Simi Valley's district, it's hard to boot that moron. Gonna be walking those streets and knocking on doors come 2018 though.

Same for Rohrabacher. Guy has been in the headlines for fucking ages now, from my own state. His favorable aren't awful.

Those guys are in district-wide seats!

The difference between district-wide elections and statewide elections is literally ten million Los Angelenos. Don't tell me California isn't blue enough when our last senatorial election was literally between a Bay Area Democrat and a Los Angeleno Democrat.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

I'm guess there is a Hillary Clinton tour going on.

 

[studyguy]

Those guys are in district-wide seats!

The difference between district-wide elections and statewide elections is literally ten million Los Angelenos. Don't tell me California isn't blue enough when our last senatorial election was literally between a Bay Area Democrat and a Los Angeleno Democrat.

Definitely not what I said, I'm talking about district wide elections people setting up all the battleground R seats as an easy flip when that definitely doesn't look like the case from current situation. Particularly worried with that district next to me when Knight literally has more than double the funding of the next 3 candidates combined thanks to GOP PACs with no signs of slowing down. Be assured I'm gonna bust my ass trying to help but some of these R seats are probably still gonna be nail biters.

 

[Stinkles]

Manchin says Congress should explore single payer.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ocrat-open-to-single-payer-health-care-system

I briefly read this as Mnuchin and almost fainted.

 

[pigeon]

Definitely not what I said, I'm talking about district wide elections people setting up all the battleground R seats as an easy flip when that definitely doesn't look like the case from current situation. Particularly worried with that district next to me when Knight literally has more than double the funding of the next 3 candidates combined thanks to GOP PACs with no signs of slowing down. Be assured I'm gonna bust my ass trying to help but some of these R seats are probably still gonna be nail biters.

Okay, sure, my bad.

I agree that district by district, there are going to be safe red seats even in the heart of California (in fact especially in the heart of California since that's the San Joaquin Valley). We should still try to challenge there, though, because you never know. But I doubt we will eliminate California GOP entirely from the house.

 

[Fenderputty]

That speaks nothing of the odds for a Democrat vs. Republican matchup though. A more liberal Democrat than Feinstein would still win election easily.

Like don't throw an alt-green party nutjob against her, but there's no shortage of qualified Democrats who would do a better job.

This is probably true.

I mean, I agree that California is secretly infiltrated by white supremacists, but that doesn't change the fact that the Democratic voters that control California should stop being complacent and allowing dumb stuff to pass, like Dianne Feinstein not getting primaried.

It's not an argument of "complacency" as much as it is about "actual ideology". We're a majority democratic state. We were when we passed prop 8 and we were when we sped up the death penalty.

But I doubt we will eliminate California GOP entirely from the house.

I mean I would love if my rep was gone, but I don't see Royce getting booted.

 

[Kusagari]

I really wish someone like Garcetti would actually do it.

Feinstein needed to retire.

 

[Fenderputty]

For the love of everything holy, no Garcetti. Most boring person ever.

 

[kirblar]

Something is almost certainly coming down the pike. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1432250

 

[DTC]

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters

This is a pretty interesting study - what do you guys think of it? I've only looked at it for about 20 minutes, still analyzing it and formulating an opinion.

 

[tbm24]

A sham DOJ investigation seems like the dumbest thing you could do when the president is under investigation for obstruction of justice that said DoJ aided and abbeded in.

 

[pigeon]

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters

This is a pretty interesting study - what do you guys think of it? I've only looked at it for about 20 minutes, still analyzing it and formulating an opinion.

I don't love the relativistic framing here, as I think it obscures the true positions of these voters relative to Democrats or to the country as a whole, but I think there's still meat here. More in a little.

 

[kirblar]

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters

This is a pretty interesting study - what do you guys think of it? I've only looked at it for about 20 minutes, still analyzing it and formulating an opinion.

This is a great breakdown (and holy shit it's long.)

I think this is a strong argument that Biden should have run. Run a mainstream Dem who's literally not Hillary in that spot and you win the election. The sheer amount of "anti-Clinton" votes warps everything.

 

[platypotamus]

Something is almost certainly coming down the pike. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1432250

That was my first thought when I saw that as well

 

[Random Human]

Something is almost certainly coming down the pike. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1432250

It was supposed to come yesterday :_)

 

[Abinash117]

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters

This is a pretty interesting study - what do you guys think of it? I've only looked at it for about 20 minutes, still analyzing it and formulating an opinion.

Free markers seem like the traditional Republican.

Staunch conservatives, anti-elite, and the American preservationists mostly seems out of reach for most Democrats. Some of the anti-elite might be convinced. Personally, I think ever group liberal or not are complacent to racial policies.

 

[And_Gignac]

We could tall about the many times I snatched your wig

My follicles are still numb.

 

[The Technomancer]

Free markers seem like the traditional Republican

Staunch conservatives, anti-elite, and the American preservationists mostly seems out of reach for most Democrats. Some of the anti-elite might be convinced. Personally, I think ever group liberal or not are complacent to racial policies.

I super wish they had asked the inverse of the bottom two questions, not "Do you want the Party to do more about X" but "How would you feel if the party did more about X?". "I don't want the party to do more about racial equality" is pretty universal among literally the entire party here, but for how many is that apathy and for how many is that actual hostility that means they will never ever vote for the modern Democratic party? This is super important

 

[Futurevoid]

The turtle has no spine, confirmed.

https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/907727104376176641

The man has called you out in public, forced your wife to equivocate when asked whether she stood beside her husband or the president and gave you a big fuck you by siding with Democrats on the debt/CR/Harvey bill and you're still out there out there mid-gulp on his nuts.

Congrats, Mitch!

 

[kirblar]

I super wish they had asked the inverse of the bottom two questions, not "Do you want the Party to do more about X" but "How would you feel if the party did more about X?". "I don't want the party to do more about racial equality" is pretty universal among literally the entire party here, but for how many is that apathy and for how many is that actual hostility that means they will never ever vote for the modern Democratic party? This is super important

Free marketers are the libertarians. Probably a good idea to throw a bone to them in some fashion. (tho the obvious choice - weed legalization, is probably not happening.)

 

[The Technomancer]

jfc

 

[Wilsongt]

My follicles are still numb.

I didn't realize you still had follicles given the amount of dragging you endured over the last year.

 

[And_Gignac]

jfc

More like "everyone turned against Clinton for a variety of reasons".

I didn't realize you still had follicles given the amount of dragging you endured over the last year.

I snatched back some during the Verrit / Clinton book debacle.

 

[pigeon]

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters

This is a pretty interesting study - what do you guys think of it? I've only looked at it for about 20 minutes, still analyzing it and formulating an opinion.

So here's some tl;dr for the folks at home. Basically, this breaks down Trump voters into five groups based on their beliefs:

• American Preservationists (20%). These guys are not ideological Republicans, think the system is rigged and generally believe in social programs, which makes sense since the majority of them receive government-funded healthcare. Why did they vote for Trump? Because they dislike immigrants and minorities in general, think that white people get discriminated against more than black people, believe their race is very important to their identity, and think that being of European descent is necessary to be a real American. In other words, they're ethnonationalists. I can think of a few other words for them too.
• Anti-Elites (19%). These guys are pretty similar to Preservationists in terms of being broke, non-ideological, distrustful of our economic system, and more supportive of government programs. They have two big differences from Preservationists: they do not believe that being white is part of being American (and they strongly believe that accepting diversity is part of being American), and they have the lowest Trump approval rating among Trump voters, while Preservationists have the highest. In other words, these are those unicorn voters who really did vote for Trump in the hopes of getting really good healthcare and assumed the white supremacy stuff wasn't a big deal. Insert sad trombone sound here. However, only 16% said they'd vote for Sanders over Trump, so don't get too worked up over these differences in what ultimately is still a relatively cohesive group of racists. They still support the Muslim ban and reducing legal immigration.
• Staunch Conservatives (31%). These folks are pretty easily summed up by saying that 91% of them voted for Mitt Romney but after last year 58% have unfavorable views of him. They consume the most political media of any group; however, it's exclusively Fox News. They are the most religious group, the only group to disbelieve in climate change, the group most likely to say capitalism works great, and the group most likely to say racism and sexism are not big problems today (unlike the Preservationists, they do think they would be problems, if they were prevalent, but of course they're not). In other words, they're my father-in-law. They always vote Republican and they voted Republican this time too.
• Free Marketeers (25%). These guys are notable for disliking Trump and voting against him in the primary. They like Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz, they support free trade, and surprise surprise, they're educated and probably have good jobs. They are less likely than even non-Trump voters to say that being European is important to being American! So why did they vote for Trump? Because Hillary Clinton has a 99% disapproval rating with them and they also always vote Republican. These are the straight-up plutocrats. Should've gone with the lesser of two evils, scumbags!
• Disengaged (5%). Pretty straightforward -- the majority political opinion on every issue for this group is "don't know/decline to state." They say immigration is the most important issue, but a plurality says they don't know whether we should make immigration harder or easier. Read that sentence again to really appreciate its enormity, please. They think the economy is rigged against them, and what they want is somebody who can make good deals. I might sum these guys up as "what happens when you make voting mandatory."

It's an interesting breakdown. I'm not sure too much of it is surprising, but it's nice to see some categories to work with.

 

[Holmes]

I agree that California is secretly infiltrated by white supremacists

?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Everyone is a Nazi.

I'm guess there is a Hillary Clinton tour going on.

Yes.
It's like everybody's birthdays and Christmases and best orgasms ever all came at once while eating chocolate cake.

 

[NihonTiger90]

Watching you talking about primarying establishment Democrats is giving me a small frisson of glee.

More, more! Tell me about how you plan to oust Tom Carper next!

This is the kind of stuff I've seen friends talking about. Many of them want to primary every Democrat they can find because none are progressive enough.

I really am at the point of telling them to do it, then wishing them luck in finding 534 people to run for Congress across all 50 states that meet their criteria.

 

[pigeon]

?

I don't understand the question. Have you visited the Santa Cruz Mountains recently?

California is a very large state with a lot of rural, heavily white areas. Those rural, heavily white areas are not that different from those that appear in other states, i.e., they are full of racists. California just happens to also contain extremely large cities that outvote them. That makes people think that California is uniformly blue. But it's not!

This is the kind of stuff I've seen friends talking about. Many of them want to primary every Democrat they can find because none are progressive enough.

I really am at the point of telling them to do it, then wishing them luck in finding 534 people to run for Congress across all 50 states that meet their criteria.

I don't think it would be particularly hard to find a Democrat in California more progressive than Dianne Feinstein.

 

[DTC]

16% of 19% is still 3%... if we can pull away 3% of Trump's voters, that's pretty huge.

I believe some Anti-Elites and Disengaged voters could easily be converted with a more charismatic candidate. The other 3 categories, however, seem solidly in Trump's camp.

 

[Plinko]

Kind of surprised Stabenow isn't onboard with the Single-payer thing heading into an election year.

 

[pigeon]

16% of 19% is still 3%... if we can pull away 3% of Trump's voters, that's pretty huge.

I believe some Anti-Elites and Disengaged voters could easily be converted with a more charismatic candidate. The other 3 categories, however, seem solidly in Trump's camp.

The Disengaged voters probably can't be won with a more charismatic candidate because it would require them to pay attention to politics.

I suspect an equal number of voters on the Democratic side are just as disconnected from politics. Some just flipped heads and some flipped tails.

 

[Fenderputty]

I don't understand the question. Have you visited the Santa Cruz Mountains recently?

California is a very large state with a lot of rural, heavily white areas. Those rural, heavily white areas are not that different from those that appear in other states, i.e., they are full of racists. California just happens to also contain extremely large cities that outvote them. That makes people think that California is uniformly blue. But it's not!
.

If you're 50+ miles east of the ocean, you may as well be in a hypothetical Arizona with more liberal gun laws and property tax.

 

[DTC]

The Disengaged voters probably can't be won with a more charismatic candidate because it would require them to pay attention to politics.

I suspect an equal number of voters on the Democratic side are just as disconnected from politics. Some just flipped heads and some flipped tails.

I believe the more disengaged, the easier it is to influence the voter based on charisma. If they barely follow politics at all, it's more likely they're going to make a vote based on how much they like / trust the person the few times they see them talk!

 

[kirblar]

I believe the more disengaged, the easier it is to influence the voter based on charisma. If they barely follow politics at all, it's more likely they're going to make a vote based on how much they like / trust the person the few times they see them talk!

Yeah, people who are barely paying attention aren't going to be voting on ideology/policy.

 

[Plinko]

I've got to be honest: I'm not seeing how a democratic candidate wins over any of those voters except for maybe some of the "Anti-elites"/"Disengaged" group, and that's going to take some rebranding on the part of the democrats.

The more I read that article, the more I'm convinced had the democrats ran someone other than Hillary they would have won. There was just way, way too much anti-Hillary sentiment out there, sadly.

Oh well. On to 2020. Elect someone the public loves. Maybe a kind, older gentleman with a history of relating to blue-collar Americans and who may have already served his country well in a major leadership position for numerous years. Someone who rides the train like Average Joe American.

 

[pigeon]

Oh well. On to 2020. Elect someone the public loves. Maybe a kind, older gentleman with a history of relating to blue-collar Americans and who may have already served his country well in a major leadership position for numerous years. Someone who rides the train like Average Joe American.

I dunno, man, I just think Jerry Brown is too old.

 

[Stinkles]

I've got to be honest: I'm not seeing how a democratic candidate wins over any of those voters except for maybe some of the "Anti-elites"/"Disengaged" group, and that's going to take some rebranding on the part of the democrats.

The more I read that article, the more I'm convinced had the democrats ran someone other than Hillary they would have won. There was just way, way too much anti-Hillary sentiment out there, sadly.

Oh well. On to 2020. Elect someone the public loves. Maybe a kind, older gentleman with a history of relating to blue-collar Americans and who may have already served his country well in a major leadership position for numerous years. Someone who rides the train like Average Joe American.

Forget that. I want a ride or die, mama lovin, firebird driving Everyman

 

[Holmes]

I don't understand the question. Have you visited the Santa Cruz Mountains recently?

California is a very large state with a lot of rural, heavily white areas. Those rural, heavily white areas are not that different from those that appear in other states, i.e., they are full of racists. California just happens to also contain extremely large cities that outvote them. That makes people think that California is uniformly blue. But it's not!

My mother-in-law lives in that area. I'm actually going to visit next weekend. I'm aware that California has white, racist people in it (and it would've probably been better to mention the Central Valley instead) but don't act like they've infiltrated and have any influence at all in the state.

 

[pigeon]

My mother-in-law lives in that area. I'm actually going to visit next weekend. I'm aware that California has white, racist people in it (and it would've probably been better to mention the Central Valley instead) but don't act like they've infiltrated and have any influence at all in the state.

I think, if you read my posts on this topic, it is pretty clear that I am not suggesting that.