• 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.
A

Abinash117

Member
SatelliteOfLove said:
They, like most of the less Buckley-esque or moderate fringe of the GOP, are 100% for what someone is AGAINST rather than FOR. Fits with the sheer negativity that defines the Right as of now.

Or they're in deep "lying to self" mode as the wheels come off, one. I do stick by my prediction either the current American Right crumbles or America does though.
Click to expand...

I think it is more to do with self preservation thing in their view. Trump is the protector from the "others" and a protector of the Evangelicals' culture. The cultural issues he keeps making is something that they support and they hope he can change things to establish their beliefs to become the dominant power. Their morals and principles takes a back seat in all of this. It is similar to way the alt-right and right leaners still support Trump. Trump brings in the change they want to see in the country culture-wise and while the alt-right and right leaners might have views that contradict each other; they are unified by the need to fight back against the other side and distaste in the current trends of culture. I think this video touches on it.

It pretty much explains the divide between many right wing voters and Congressional Republicans; the establishment Republicans aren't 100% on board and thus need to be removed because they are the obstacles of change. This is simplifying it, but the guise of it.
 
Dominican Power

Dominican Power

Member
DMMCuy8VwAEjoED.jpg


If this was Obama, we would of never heard the end of it. Fuck the right.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Imagine there’s no shitposts
It’s easy if you try
no neoliberal sellouts
making Bernie Bros cry

You may think I’m a Dreamer
But DACAs really gone
Maybe one day you’ll join us, and vote in midterms for once
 
R

royalan

Member
What is with NYTs obsession with taking one good thing someone in the Trump administration does and trying to completely revamp their image around that one good thing?
 
R

RDreamer

Member
royalan said:
What is with NYTs obsession with taking one good thing someone the Trump administration and trying to completely revamp their image around that one good thing?
Click to expand...

Until the NYT does some soul searching about their campaign coverage I'm going to continue to say they fucking suck. Also, I still want to know what the hell was up with this story.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
excelsiorlef said:
Everyone knows O’Malley-GAF are the real assholes
Click to expand...

I mean the fact virtually no one gave O'Malley a chance gives them the right. He was a legitimate candidate that didn't get sufficient consideration. And Democratic primary voters experienced the consequences as their preferred person went on to take an L. Bernie couldn't overcome the Clinton machine like Obama did. And Hillary was humbled by the person she wanted to run against on the GOP side.
 
K

kirblar

Member
TheLaughingStock said:
I mean the fact virtually no one gave O'Malley a chance gives them the right. He was a legitimate candidate that didn't get sufficient consideration. And Democratic primary voters experienced the consequences as their preferred person went on to take an L. Bernie couldn't overcome the Clinton machine like Obama did. And Hillary was humbled by the person she wanted to run against on the GOP side.
Click to expand...
The people of MD gave O'Malley a chance.

They voted in the Republican in a blowout after he left office.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
TheLaughingStock said:
I mean the fact virtually no one gave O'Malley a chance gives them the right. He was a legitimate candidate that didn't get sufficient consideration. And Democratic primary voters experienced the consequences as their preferred person went on to take an L. Bernie couldn't overcome the Clinton machine like Obama did. And Hillary was humbled by the person she wanted to run against on the GOP side.
Click to expand...

...

It was a joke.
 
R

royalan

Member
TheLaughingStock said:
I mean the fact virtually no one gave O'Malley a chance gives them the right. He was a legitimate candidate that didn't get sufficient consideration. And Democratic primary voters experienced the consequences as their preferred person went on to take an L. Bernie couldn't overcome the Clinton machine like Obama did. And Hillary was humbled by the person she wanted to run against on the GOP side.
Click to expand...

Nobody gave O'Malley a chance and for good reason. The man's hot and all, but he has a terrible track record among African Americans. He'd have been eaten alive in the South and it would have come down to Hillary and Bernie anyway. O'Malley knew for that exact reason that if he didn't make a mark before the southern primaries he was done.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
O’Malley is the worst type of democrat. Terrible on social issues historically and zero economic policy other than raising taxes and creating stupid new tax laws on things like the rain in order to cover up for the fact that they can’t manage a budget.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
TheLaughingStock said:
I mean the fact virtually no one gave O'Malley a chance gives them the right. He was a legitimate candidate that didn't get sufficient consideration. And Democratic primary voters experienced the consequences as their preferred person went on to take an L. Bernie couldn't overcome the Clinton machine like Obama did. And Hillary was humbled by the person she wanted to run against on the GOP side.
Click to expand...

He was given more than sufficient consideration by the media compared to Bernie. Bernie got the same treatment Trump got, up until it was absolutely clear he was the only thing that made the primary worth covering. Even as his polls rose to become the clear second place, they still wanted it to be O'Malley vs Hillary, until about September 2015, when the debates started needing to get hyped and O'Malley was still at 2% in the polls.

O'Malley got nowhere because anyone that might like him probably already liked Hillary more.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
thepotatoman said:
He was given more than sufficient consideration by the media compared to Bernie. Bernie got the same treatment Trump got, up until it was absolutely clear he was the only thing that made the primary worth covering.
Click to expand...
This is not true.

The news networks would drop EVERYTHING to show complete entire Trump rallies regardless of how long they were since day one. They never did that with Sanders. Not to mention constant converage of every single tweet.

Bernie got more coverage than Omalley,.. sure.. but let’s not compare his treatment to Trump’s. Nobody has ever, ever gotten the type of coverage Trump got.

It’s also why I want the parties to come together and mandate political/military experience. Politicians can’t compete with celebrity and our ratings based cash flow private news networks will continue to favor people like Trump over everyone else unless we do something about it. Because there’s nothing serious qualified people can do to offer these networks similar compensation by giving time to them
 
O

Ogodei

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
This is not true.

The news networks would drop EVERYTHING to show complete entire Trump rallies regardless of how long they were since day one. They never did that with Sanders. Not to mention constant converage of every single tweet.

Bernie got more coverage than Omalley,.. sure.. but let’s not compare his treatment to Trump’s. Nobody has ever, ever gotten the type of coverage Trump got.

It’s also why I want the parties to come together and mandate political/military experience. Politicians can’t compete with celebrity and our ratings based cash flow private news networks will continue to favor people like Trump over everyone else unless we do something about it. Because there’s nothing serious qualified people can do to offer these networks similar compensation by giving time to them
Click to expand...

I feel like Trump's abject failure should filter out celebrities who are genuine know-nothings (as some of the celebrities do know what they're doing, like Clooney on refugees or DiCaprio on the environment)
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Ogodei said:
I feel like Trump's abject failure should filter out celebrities who are genuine know-nothings (as some of the celebrities do know what they're doing, like Clooney on refugees or DiCaprio on the environment)
Click to expand...
I don’t think it will. Likeability and charisma will overcome it. Especially if it comes from someone comepletely different than Trump

Trump’s inability to govern should have been tested. Imagine if he had become Governor or Florida or something first. It would have been an absolutely shit show. It’s sort of similar to Arnold. Assuming he had been able to run his terrible tenure as Governor in California would have buried his chances; where as he probably could have walked straight into the White House if he had, in a scenario where he was allowed to run for the Oval Office outright

As long as favorables and ratings for congress, both major political parties are as bad as they are, celebrity with no record will seem better. To your average voter, no record is better than a bad one.

But governoring is incredibly difficult; and people who are interested should be forced to play on the same level before they are allowed to just be in control of everything.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Has a reporter even asked the press secretary if trump has spoken to the parents of the ambush victims? That he can get away with playing golf as they returned to the country is just incredibly frustrating. Why are democrats so bad at making him accountable for any of his hypocrisy?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
VendettaRed07 said:
This is not true.

The news networks would drop EVERYTHING to show complete entire Trump rallies regardless of how long they were since day one. They never did that with Sanders. Not to mention constant converage of every single tweet.

Bernie got more coverage than Omalley,.. sure.. but let's not compare his treatment to Trump's. Nobody has ever, ever gotten the type of coverage Trump got.

It's also why I want the parties to come together and mandate political/military experience. Politicians can't compete with celebrity and our ratings based cash flow private news networks will continue to favor people like Trump over everyone else unless we do something about it. Because there's nothing serious qualified people can do to offer these networks similar compensation by giving time to them
Click to expand...

The trump comparison was about the amount of seriousness they treated the candidates regardless of poll numbers, but for certain they gave Trump endless coverage and Sanders basically none in 2015.

I'm pretty sure Bernie got less coverage than O'Malley through most of 2015. I'm trying to find stats for it but all I can find is this:

https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton's leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year. Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times more coverage than he did.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the source is paywalled to check the O'Malley numbers.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Ok I have a crazy what if scenario.

Imagine Arnold had never become Governor of California and was eligible to become POTUS.

2008. Arnold vs Barack Obama. Who wins?

Honestly, I think it’s Arnold. Despite Obama running one of the best campaigns ever, I don’t think even that would have been enough to overcome the celebrity advantage. Which I think is indicative of how bad things can potentially get going forward if this trend continues.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
Teggy said:
Has a reporter even asked the press secretary if trump has spoken to the parents of the ambush victims? That he can get away with playing golf as they returned to the country is just incredibly frustrating. Why are democrats so bad at making him accountable for any of his hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

What the fuck do you want them to do? Send leaflets? Trump's voters couldn't care less.

I swear, some people here and in the political press should just write a fucking book titled Trump Lies, Cheats, and Steals: What Democrats Are Doing Wrong.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
VendettaRed07 said:
Ok I have a crazy what if scenario.

Imagine Arnold had never become Governor of California and was eligible to become POTUS.

2008. Arnold vs Barack Obama. Who wins?

Honestly, I think it’s Arnold. Despite Obama running one of the best campaigns ever, I don’t think even that would have been enough to overcome the celebrity advantage. Which I think is indicative of how bad things can potentially get going forward if this trend continues.
Click to expand...

2008, maybe it's arnold, but I don't know about 2020 forward. Trump might kill off the idea of celebrity presidents for a while.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Autodidact said:
What the fuck do you want them to do? Send leaflets? Trump's voters couldn't care less.

I swear, some people here and in the political press should just write a fucking book titled Trump Lies, Cheats, and Steals: What Democrats Are Doing Wrong.
Click to expand...

It’s seems that we need to put all of the republicans who are not trump on the defensive. If his voters don’t care, make their voters care. Make them answer why he is playing golf and ignoring the deaths of American soldiers.
 
R

royalan

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
Ok I have a crazy what if scenario.

Imagine Arnold had never become Governor of California and was eligible to become POTUS.

2008. Arnold vs Barack Obama. Who wins?

Honestly, I think it's Arnold. Despite Obama running one of the best campaigns ever, I don't think even that would have been enough to overcome the celebrity advantage. Which I think is indicative of how bad things can potentially get going forward if this trend continues.
Click to expand...

I think Obama still wins for two big reasons.

1) Obama was running as the Hope/Change candidate after the disastrous Bush administration. Arnold has the celebrity advantage, but he's still a Republican. He would have been nailed to Bush's legacy just as much as McCain was.

2) Being a celebrity isn't enough. Trump didn't win just because of his celebrity, although it certainly gave him a huge advantage. I would argue that Trump's direct and blatant appeals to whiteness was his biggest appeal, with his celebrity being the secondary thing that made news media trip over themselves to give him billions worth of free coverage, only amplifying that racist message. Arnold is a celebrity, but he would have run as a more or less standard Republican politician, like he did we he ran for governor.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
What monster did I create with a simple joke
Click to expand...

It's potentially an interesting discussion. O'Malley was a candidate trying to go national while hiding the fact that his local performance was probably as bad as it could be. He should serve as a warning to people who want to skip straight to national service or half-ass local service first.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
royalan said:
I think Obama still wins for two big reasons.

1) Obama was running as the Hope/Change candidate after the disastrous Bush administration. Arnold has the celebrity advantage, but he's still a Republican. He would have been nailed to Bush's legacy just as much as McCain was.

2) Being a celebrity isn't enough. Trump didn't win just because of his celebrity, although it certainly gave him a huge advantage. I would argue that Trump's direct and blatant appeals to whiteness was his biggest appeal, with his celebrity being the secondary thing that made news media trip over themselves to give him billions worth of free coverage, only amplifying that racist message. Arnold is a celebrity, but he would have run as a more or less standard Republican politician, like he did we he ran for governor.
Click to expand...
Agreed with both your points for the most part. You’re right Arnold would likely have just run as a normal politician; but now we are in a scenario where that illusion is mostly shattered as being a requirement, if not actually benefiticial to ditch it, is just going to make that harder for future politicians if they are up against a straight to the Presidency celebrity run again.

I’m not sure if he would have been nailed down for the Iraq war like McCain was either. In fact I think he would have been the only Republican who could have dodged it. Because I think people like him, they can basically chose whatever they want to be attached to because they were never in a position where they actually had to definitively support or oppose something. Like Trump supported the Iraq war too, but because he didn’t have to actually vote for it he just made up a bunch of bullshit and said he opposed it and people and the media just went along it.

Also you’re right on white nationalism being his biggest asset. In thinking about it, I can’t quite think of anything Arnold policy wise would have ran on that would have galvanized the rural base and created similar levels or turnout Trump did, or that would have countered Obama’s turnout game adequately

Really though, even if Obama wins I think it’s almost guaranteed Arnold would have outperformed McCain. It’s just a question about how much. Which I believe is indicative of there’s just too much upside to having high name recognition and no record at all. Which I think will only get worse now as more random people are encouraged to get in the game now that they see it can work and how much of an advantage they’ll have with 24/7 news network support. And as long as the popularity of congress, and both major political parties as as poor as they are right now, I don’t think Trump will ruin the chances of similar people like him. People like him should have to be forced into ruining themselves by showing whether or not they can actually perform in an office somewhere
 
R

Randolph Freelander

Member
Scoop: Trump privately predicts he will appoint four justices
https://www.axios.com/trumps-four-justices-2497007846.html

They swear he's not joking. Sources who've spoken to the president about the Supreme Court say he tells them he thinks he'll have appointed four justices by the end of his first term.

"It's all about the numbers for him," one source said.

Asked how he comes to that jaw-dropping number, Trump mentions the obvious: he's already replaced Antonin Scalia with Neil Gorsuch, and there are rumors Anthony Kennedy will retire.

"Ok," one source told Trump, "so that's two. Who are the others?"

"Ginsburg," Trump replied. "What does she weigh? 60 pounds?"

"Who's the fourth?" the source asked.

"Sotomayor," Trump said, referring to the relatively recently-appointed Obama justice, whose name is rarely, if ever, mentioned in speculation about the next justice to be replaced. "Her health," Trump explained. "No good. Diabetes."

Sotomayor has opened up about her struggles with type-1 diabetes, but she's managed it successfully since childhood.

The White House and spokespeople for the Supreme Court didn't respond to requests for comment.
Click to expand...
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Drakeon said:
Sotomayor is young, why would you mention her? Ginsburg and Kennedy are the worry.
Click to expand...

She's one of the 4 trump mentioned because of her type 1 diabetes. Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor is his predicted list.
 
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
55K
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
3K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom