BertramCooper
Banned
Muahahaha.
-
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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Muahahaha.
I say it doesn't matter because he's a has-been Governor who is VP material at best.
Yellowtail
Member
You know he tried to banish The Wire from filming in Baltimore? That alone should make his candidacy DOA.
O'Malley's biggest problem (aside from being a deathly boring technocrat) has always been that he has no real ideological constituency with Sanders in the race. There's not many Democrats who think Hillary is too right wing to vote for but at the same time are scared away by Sanders. It doesn't help that all ideological ratings show him to Clinton's right, making his new left-wing zeal smack of desperate opportunism - something his time as Baltimore mayor now only reinforces. (Although that didn't stop Edwards much in 08 who was the favorite of liberals despite having a terrible voting record).
I guess the advantage O'Malley would have had in a Sanders-less primary is that he looks electable enough to cobble together more Anyone But Hillary votes. Sanders will always have a ceiling in every primary state not called Vermont.
I think Sanders will get around 30% in Iowa and NH, O'Malley and Webb 5% each and Clinton gets the rest.
O'Malley's biggest problem (aside from being a deathly boring technocrat) has always been that he has no real ideological constituency with Sanders in the race. There's not many Democrats who think Hillary is too right wing to vote for but at the same time are scared away by Sanders. It doesn't help that all ideological ratings show him to Clinton's right, making his new left-wing zeal smack of desperate opportunism - something his time as Baltimore mayor now only reinforces. (Although that didn't stop Edwards much in 08 who was the favorite of liberals despite having a terrible voting record).
I guess the advantage O'Malley would have had in a Sanders-less primary is that he looks electable enough to cobble together more Anyone But Hillary votes. Sanders will always have a ceiling in every primary state not called Vermont.
I think Sanders will get around 30% in Iowa and NH, O'Malley and Webb 5% each and Clinton gets the rest.
O'Malley seems like the "I'm-here-if-Hillary-implodes-for-some-freak-reason" candidate. He can have a cordial/sensible discussion with her, needle her about being allegedly too moderate, and give good contrast (both visually & tonally) to the circus on the other side of the aisle. His reward would be an administration position. Not too bad an arrangement.
Speaking of contrast, Salon's been picking my mind..
20 candidates vying for attention in an hour-long format. That'd be - not counting moderator speaking time - 3 minutes apiece.
Speaking of contrast, Salon's been picking my mind..
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/gop...blem_how_does_it_trim_down_the_debate_roster/
20 candidates vying for attention in an hour-long format. That'd be - not counting moderator speaking time - 3 minutes apiece.
jamesinclair
Banned
I want to start seeing Hilary vs Bernie maps.
Bernie has new England and California wrapped up, and Hillary has new York and the south for sure
Bernie has new England and California wrapped up, and Hillary has new York and the south for sure
Yellowtail
Member
Lol you know Clinton won California and half of New England in 2008 right?
Bernie will win Vermont like Dean did in 2004 and that's it.
Bernie will win Vermont like Dean did in 2004 and that's it.
Macho Madness
Member
Who is the biggest challenger to Hillary realistically? Biden if he runs? I'd take him over her personally but not sure how popular that opinion is.
Primary, General or Both?
Primary: Nobody realistically. Warren isnt running. Biden wont challenge his friend. Her opponents have the potential to not even win their own state come primary season. She is the defacto front-runner for the nomination coronation or not.
General: The only realistic nominees are Bush, Rubio, Walker or Paul. Bush is the biggest challenger followed by Rubio. That assumes that any of them will make it out of the primary without too many scars. Dont forget Democrats have a electoral college advantage. They start with 263 compared to the Republicans 190. You need 270 to win.
BertramCooper
Banned
PhoenixDark
Banned
Hard to see an architect of mass incarceration policies getting far, or even getting a VP nod. Which makes things even more dangerous for democrats. If Hillary becomes too toxic or is forced out the race, democrats might not have anyone else. Someone might be forced to enter the race late, like a Kerry or Gore.
I like O'Malley's positions on multiple issues but he sold his soul for lower crime numbers.
BertramCooper
Banned
Isn't O'Malley too busy with Game of Thrones to run for president anyway?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Honestly, I think their best back up is Elizabeth Warren. Not because I like her, but because she honestly gives Democrats the best chance to win outside of Hillary. She's the closest they have to a household name without digging into losers of the past, a good speaker/debater, a women, and doesn't really have much dirt on her. The establishment should start begging her to enter the race if something happens to Hillary, promising her all the resources and advisors Hillary had.
You might as well go with Biden if you're going with Kerry or Gore as the backup, and Biden does terrible in head to head polling.
adamsappel
Member
Biden is the obvious Democratic fall-back candidate.
Yellowtail
Member
I think Warren would be hopeless in a general election. She's a poor campaigner as her senate race proved, she'd be out-funded by her GOP challenger by colossal margins, the media would turn on her instantly and destroy her character like they did with Kerry and Gore, and unfortunately a woman is not going to be elected commander-in-chief without any foreign policy experience.
She'd get the Kerry states + New Mexico, but I can't see her reaching 270.
She'd get the Kerry states + New Mexico, but I can't see her reaching 270.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I can't see Warren winning. She's not a great or even good politician, represents a state that breeds presidential election losers, and would be horribly outspent by whoever the GOP nom is. Just as I doubt a black person not named Barack Obama could win the presidency right now, I'm not convinced a woman not named Hillary Clinton could; Obama because of his supreme talent/story, and Hillary because of her last name.
I know that it's irrational, but I'd rather not have Hillary Clinton in office. I'd prefer it if Bernie Sanders get the nomination, even if it means he's more likely to lose to a Republican because I don't want another dishonest liberal in office. And I don't want to continue to maker our democracy even more of a joke by continuing a political dynasty.
Aaron Strife
Banned
NeoXChaos there is no scenario where Republicans lose Ohio but win WI/MI/PA. Absolutely none. Every fundamental element about Ohio (strong labor force, auto industry, large urban communities etc) is even more strongly in the Democrats' favor in those three states.
That being said I don't think Warren would do that well, either.
Keep in mind Obama also enjoyed a bounce after the death of Osama bin Laden, inflating his numbers a bit here (I think that's when the Obama+7 PPP poll was conducted). Reuters/Ipsos is kind of garbage from what I can tell.
I think Booker and Gillibrand would both fare decently as general election candidates.
Her Senate race proved she was a poor campaigner? She won by quite a solid margin. Yes Massachusetts is a strong Democratic state but remember that Scott Brown was seen as invincible and no one wanted to get into the race.Yellowtail said:
That being said I don't think Warren would do that well, either.
I knew that. I just went crazy with the map to see how it could be done if FL, OH & VA weren't in their column. States certainly dont swing like that and I would not expect them to.
FiggCat: Hillary is married to Bill Clinton. Jeb has a brother and father as President with a Grandfather as Senator by Blood. Bush is a dynasty, Clinton isnt.
Yellowtail
Member
Warren ran 16 points behind Obama in Massachusetts. I know Scott Brown was a popular incumbent, but nothing in the race points to her being a particularly good politician that would play well nationally.
Since the Democrats have a Electoral College advantage, shouldn't the "blue wall" protect them to an extent? Its not like Sanders would make PA go red would he?
Ted Cruz would be a horrible Republican General Election candidate but would he put GA & AZ in play realistically?
If the blue wall exist candidate quality aside, Warren and Sanders start out with 242-263. Give or take NH, IA, NV, NM, IA
BertramCooper
Banned
Again, the Supreme Court.
It's too important to ever want an unelectable Democrat to win the nomination, or to want any Republican to win the presidency.
"Moderate" Jeb was recently asked about the Supreme Court.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/jeb-bush-supreme-court_n_7184774.html
Nope nope nope. FUCK NO.
Well when you put it that way... I wouldn't want Bush either. I can't even imagine the type of people Walker would admire.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I don't want to spend too long discussing a hypothetical that will never happen, but all I'm saying is that Warren would be the next best if Hillary is somehow forced out of the race. Warren might not be favored to win in that situation, but she'd fare better with an inherited Hillary machine than any other replacement democrat would.
Biden would be a guaranteed loss, Warren might make it close. She's already doing better in polls than Biden, and she could win Ohio if Brown could win Ohio.
Yeah, those are clearly the safe choices for the future of the party. Also really points out how much Democrats suck at the state level. Even O'Malley has his own part of the blame for the racial injustice seen in Baltimore, and de Blasio oversaw the complete lack of justice for Eric Garner.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Dunno. He has embarrassed himself so much over the last few years I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously.
Yellowtail
Member
The blue wall isn't some insurmountable solid D block that will never vote Republican. They are made up of solid D states + lean D states. All the blue wall shows is that there are many states that lean slight D+ PVI and so Democrats have a small electoral college advantage. Obama won the popular vote by 4% in 2012 but the tipping point state Colorado by 5.4% so with a uniform swing Romney could have won the PV by 1% and still lost. But all it would take is for the GOP to get over 51% in the PV and the blue wall would crumble. Which would certainly be possible if they ran against a terrible candidate like Sanders.
I think Warren would probably do as well as Kerry, but Sanders would be lucky to break 200 electoral votes.
It's not even about the particular individual who gets the presidency, it's that they get to fill out the entire executive branch with members of their party. GWB appeared moderate but look at the scum who were appointed in his administration. Any Republican would be worse than the worst Democrat.
And yeah, Supreme Court.
Yeah exactly, a month or so ago I got into a nasty argument in the off-topic before Hillary announced and said that the Democratic advantage in the electoral college will only hold up to an at most 2% deficit in the popular vote. So many posters just wouldn't have it.
If Hillary loses the national popular vote 48% to 50% (give third parties the usual 2% total) then I see this map being easily possible.
Obama won 2012 by 4% nationally.
He won Florida by 1%
He won Ohio by 3%
He won Virginia by slightly less than 4%
So as of 2012's demographics we have to assume Florida and Ohio are lean red states under an even national vote. A 2 point national popular vote loss would also lose Virginia, unless Washington D.C. suburb growth has been huge in the intervening 4 years.
He won Colorado by slightly less than 5.5%
He won Iowa by slightly less than 6%
So using 2012's demographics we have to assume that a 2 point Hillary loss in the popular vote (a net 6 point swing) would put those States heavily at risk.
BertramCooper
Banned
Fiorina announces her candidacy tomorrow. Yay!
Speaking of Electoral College:
The 2016 Results We Can Already Predict: The battleground states will give you déjà vu.
Toss Ups: NV, NH, CO, IA, FL, OH, VA
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554.html?hp=t2_r#.VUaaI_lViko
Republicans Peril
Important
The 2016 Results We Can Already Predict: The battleground states will give you déjà vu.
Toss Ups: NV, NH, CO, IA, FL, OH, VA
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554.html?hp=t2_r#.VUaaI_lViko
Republicans Peril
Important
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I highly, highly doubt the electoral map is going to stay exactly the same now that Obama is out of the picture. It seems clear the list of swing states is going to stay the same, but the precise lean of those swing states will change depending on who wins the primaries. If I were republican, I'd be particularly worried about Jeb's chances in Ohio against Clinton.
As for Sanders, we don't have the data to predict how the swing states will feel about him, but I still believe if he can do better than Hillary in the primaries, then he'll do better than her in the general. Both the primary and the general election are uphill climbs for him for the same reason, he's unknown and seen as fringe. There's no point in opposing him in the primary with the reason of his general election chances when right now he probably has worse odds at winning the primary than he does at winning the general election.
Besides, there's plenty of time to switch to a strategic vote next year when it's actually time to vote and we have tons of data about his chances in the primary and general election. At least give him a shot to win the general public's approval before completely writing him off, or give him support on principle to help move the overton window in a primary he'll never win and strategic votes aren't changing anything.
As for Sanders, we don't have the data to predict how the swing states will feel about him, but I still believe if he can do better than Hillary in the primaries, then he'll do better than her in the general. Both the primary and the general election are uphill climbs for him for the same reason, he's unknown and seen as fringe. There's no point in opposing him in the primary with the reason of his general election chances when right now he probably has worse odds at winning the primary than he does at winning the general election.
Besides, there's plenty of time to switch to a strategic vote next year when it's actually time to vote and we have tons of data about his chances in the primary and general election. At least give him a shot to win the general public's approval before completely writing him off, or give him support on principle to help move the overton window in a primary he'll never win and strategic votes aren't changing anything.
Yellowtail
Member
The best route for GOP victory: (NC) + FL + OH + VA + one of IA or CO
The best route for Dem victory: (NM + NH) + NV + VA
VA had D+0 PVI in 2012, and IA and CO were more Democratic, so theoretically it should be easier for Hillary to get those two states instead of VA to reach 272, but she's a much worse fit than Obama in those states (while she's a great fit for VA) and all recent polling bares this out.
The unusual thing is that Clinton is stronger in Florida and Ohio than Obama, so it's possible to envision her winning Florida against Rand Paul and losing Colorado, or winning Ohio against Jeb and losing Iowa.
It's really hard to see any GOP candidate overcoming a Clinton/Kaine ticket though.
The best route for Dem victory: (NM + NH) + NV + VA
VA had D+0 PVI in 2012, and IA and CO were more Democratic, so theoretically it should be easier for Hillary to get those two states instead of VA to reach 272, but she's a much worse fit than Obama in those states (while she's a great fit for VA) and all recent polling bares this out.
The unusual thing is that Clinton is stronger in Florida and Ohio than Obama, so it's possible to envision her winning Florida against Rand Paul and losing Colorado, or winning Ohio against Jeb and losing Iowa.
It's really hard to see any GOP candidate overcoming a Clinton/Kaine ticket though.
RastaMentality
Banned
Did anyone watch every single republican primary debate back in 2011/12?
*raises hand*
RastaMentality
Banned
Was it worth it? I may do it this year.
So-so. I'm much more likely to watch if there's a live audience who's able to cheer, boo, and egg-on the candidates as appropriate. This year, I'll probably watch most of them, just to see how they handle the logistics of soooo many candidates.
jamesinclair
Banned
The honorable Bernie Sanders
Governor Brown
Mayor Villaraigosa
Corey Booker
Shithead Cuomo (Wal street $$$)
If youre serious it really is one new GOP candidate every week.
Is this scripted?
Its like DLC almost
Its literally the best recurring comedy show on television.
And has more "oh snaps" than Empire.
And yes, have alcohol with you.
Not nearly enough popcorn for this Idiot Festival.
WayneMorse
Banned
She can now add failed presidential candidate to her resume of failed tech CEO and failed Senate candidate.
Macho Madness
Member
I'm glad Carson is running. There's no chance he'll get the nomination but he will bring the crazy.
jamesinclair
Banned
Was this posted for the haters?
It speaks directly to some posters here
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
It speaks directly to some posters here
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429#ixzz3Z8JLRiqT
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Yellowtail
Member
What? The press has been giving Elizabeth Warren sycophantic coverage for months now and have been nakedly desperate in their attempts to draft her into the race. Heck, media outlets are still including Warren in their primary polls even though she's said she's not running a million times. She's absolutely taken seriously.
Sanders isn't seen as a serious contender because he isn't a serious contender. This feels like Ron Paul 2008/2012 all over again. It isn't some vast media/corporate conspiracy to keep him down - he genuinely has no chance, just like Ben Carson has no chance for the GOP nomination. He absolutely deserves as much coverage as minor GOP contenders and he'll probably get that as the media wants a competitive primary (he was on ABC's This Week today for an interview for example), but reporters shouldn't just throw all political science out of the window to appease internet fanboys.
Sanders isn't seen as a serious contender because he isn't a serious contender. This feels like Ron Paul 2008/2012 all over again. It isn't some vast media/corporate conspiracy to keep him down - he genuinely has no chance, just like Ben Carson has no chance for the GOP nomination. He absolutely deserves as much coverage as minor GOP contenders and he'll probably get that as the media wants a competitive primary (he was on ABC's This Week today for an interview for example), but reporters shouldn't just throw all political science out of the window to appease internet fanboys.
jamesinclair
Banned
Yeah the rookie black senator has no chance of being president.
Get in line behind people with actual experience lol.
Get in line behind people with actual experience lol.
Bernie Sanders has no chance of winning the primary or general election. There is no way the party will let him through to the general even in the unlikely event Hillary implodes. What do you guys want from Hillary that you arent satisfied with? What will Bernie do as President that Hillary couldnt do? The only people I see ranting about Warren or Sanders is from the internet. Most polls show overwhelming support for Hillary.
What is the end game? Sit out next year if Bernie dosent win or Warren didnt run because that certainly helped us in 2010 and 2014.
Yellowtail
Member
Yeah this never happened.
Honestly the thing I'm most looking forward to next year in this race is the end to bullshit 2008 revisionism. Although it will probably continue for years to come judging by Republicans who still espouse 1980 folklore that they just need a true conservative like Reagan to landslide everywhere.
The reason why Sanders can't win and why even Warren would struggle massively in the primary is that there simply isn't a broad enough coalition of Democrats that will vote for them. Progressive insurgents historically never win - look at Hart, Bradley, Dean - and the only reason Obama managed it (aside from being a once in a generation political talent running the best primary campaign in modern history) is that he could add traditionally moderate African Americans to his support among upscale white liberals. All polling data shows Sanders and Warren's support utterly craters among minorities.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Great article. It really pisses me off whenever journalists cover candidates primarily as fringe or unlikely to win before anything else. You might as well not cover them if that's all you have to say about them. It's the same with a lot of republican candidates. If you think there's a reason they're not serious, at least report on the fact that lead you to believe they're not serious, not the fact that they're not serious, and let the people decide from there.
I don't mind it in a topic like Poligaf, where people are largely informed of who everyone is anyhow, and don't have to uphold a journalistic responsibility to inform, but this shit is common in the press, and it's the worst example of horse race coverage taking precedence over actual informing the public.
At least in the democratic primary, it's an undisputed fact that anyone is going to have a hard time toppling Hillary, and maybe impossible. But it's certainly not a fact that Biden, O'Malley, Webb, and Cuomo have a better chance at toppling her than Sanders does. That's just opinion, and yet it's commonly thrown into actual reports like it is a fact.
It's even worse on the republican side, where no one can say for sure who has a chance, and yet you see papers treat Rand Paul like his chance is as poor as his father's, while acting like Rick Perry or Ted Cruz could easily the lead any day now. What leads the press to think this, other than personal feelings about the candidate?
Aaron Strife
Banned
I can't imagine who would even be cheerleading Cuomo at this point. Who does he appeal to? Certainly no informed liberal uneasy with Clinton's centrism would support him. They'd go with O'Malley or Sanders. There doesn't seem to be any rabble from the establishment for someone more "pro-business," they seem to be pretty content with Clinton.
O'Malley and Sanders have no chance but they at least fill an ideological gap that Clinton might not (who has become markedly more populist from the looks of things). A hypothetical Cuomo candidacy would be the most absurdly futile thing to happen in politics since Ron Paul.
The most traction Cuomo could ever get as a candidate is if Hillary somehow blows it and he could argue Democrats need to return to centrism to win. But that certainly wouldn't happen in 2016 and there are probably better candidates who could make that case anyway.
O'Malley and Sanders have no chance but they at least fill an ideological gap that Clinton might not (who has become markedly more populist from the looks of things). A hypothetical Cuomo candidacy would be the most absurdly futile thing to happen in politics since Ron Paul.
The most traction Cuomo could ever get as a candidate is if Hillary somehow blows it and he could argue Democrats need to return to centrism to win. But that certainly wouldn't happen in 2016 and there are probably better candidates who could make that case anyway.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked