• 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 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
More from that article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.d6f0cc58f98f

50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living.

A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.

42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats' economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump's policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.
Click to expand...

The Technomancer said:
If those people think Trump was going to favor the wealthy less they're probably unreachable

Whatever
Click to expand...

It can't be "whatever," though. A sizeable number of people switched from Obama to Trump. Racism can't possibly be the reason for that move, so they have to get these voters back. Reading those statistics above, it is blatantly clear the democrats are horrible at messaging.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
BoogieWoogie said:
https://twitter.com/fivefifths/status/859022301379125249

FUCKING CHRIST
Click to expand...

chadskin said:
On his "Obama wiretapppppped me" tweet:

C-vhZz8XYAAibxM.jpg
Click to expand...

How can one man be such an idiot
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.
Click to expand...

Alright, so that's a lesson learned. Let's not pick basically the most hated politician by the opposition, as our candidate.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
kirblar said:
And people wonder why I hate him.
Click to expand...

And here's where the problem lies. They almost have to include him in leadership somewhere along the way to 2020 to prevent him from running again. If he runs and loses in the primary, they're done, because his cult-like followers won't turn out to vote.

Reading that article is interesting. Republicans have somehow been able to paint democrats as elites, and democrats haven't been able to counteract that even though their policies clearly portray a paradigm of equality. Perhaps they should be more outgoing in attacking the rich.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Racism DID predict a sizeable amount of Obama/Trump flips.

It's not all of it and dealing with the non racist margin is where to go, but the "he says what he means reaction from people was indeed due to the goddamn white nationalism.
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
Y2Kev said:
I like gillary but I don't think she can win. I think she's a real liberal (like Hillary) so I don't have any policy issues, but she's literally Hillary 2. The same issues will be there. Except the email server.

Will people think she's unlikable? Because she's a woman probably...ugh.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if she's a good candidate or not yet but it would be an interesting and informative experiment because it would control for literally everything except Hillary's inherent Hillary-ness.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Crab said:
You need to stop relitigating the primaries.
Click to expand...

Huh?

During the primary, we thought she could get over how absolutely hated she was by the entire GOP. That doesn't appear to have been the case when a third of Trump voters only voted against her, not for Trump. It's a lesson learned for the future, that we need to be more careful with picking such huge targets as candidates.

Also everyone keep that study in their back pocket next time people whine about "I don't vote AGAINST someone, I only vote FOR someone" and note that Trump likely won because people actually did vote against someone.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Plinko said:
It can't be "whatever," though. A sizeable number of people switched from Obama to Trump. Racism can't possibly be the reason for that move, so they have to get these voters back. Reading those statistics above, it is blatantly clear the democrats are horrible at messaging.
Click to expand...

No-one is that bad at messaging. Or, more specifically, if that's the case why aren't Trump voters, including those flippers, now unhappy with all the rich people he's stuffed his cabinet with?

Like, if we're to credibly take the idea that some significant fraction of Trump voters thought he would be harder on the rich, shouldn't we now hear them being upset?
 
K

kirblar

Member
Plinko said:
And here's where the problem lies. They almost have to include him in leadership somewhere along the way to 2020 to prevent him from running again. If he runs and loses in the primary, they're done, because his cult-like followers won't turn out to vote.

Reading that article is interesting. Republicans have somehow been able to paint democrats as elites, and democrats haven't been able to counteract that even though their policies clearly portray a paradigm of equality. Perhaps they should be more outgoing in attacking the rich.
Click to expand...
Because "elites" isn't about being an actual elite. It's about being a non rural person. Populism being the "common (white rural) man w common sense v the work has been a thing forever.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
kirblar said:
Racism DID predict a sizeable amount of Obama/Trump flips.
Click to expand...

I'm puzzled as to how these people would vote for a black man and then all of a sudden when a racist comes in they say, "I've been waiting for this the whole time!" It just doesn't make sense to me, I guess. I've lived in rural areas my entire life and the racists I've met hated Obama since the moment he hit the spotlight.

kirblar said:
Because "elites" isn't about being an actual elite. It's about being a non rural person. Populism being the "common (white rural) man w common sense v the work has been a thing forever.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but democrats can counter this with effective messaging. They just haven't done it. On a side note, Biden is popular most likely because of this persona, and I still think he'd be the best choice in 2020 regardless of his age.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
That Trump quote about the Civil War is literally making me rage right now. That's the event they spend the most time covering in EVERY school in America. If you can't understand why people couldn't just "sort it out" you likely have some sort of learning disability. Does someone have a better source than a tweet on that intellectual hate crime of an interview response?

CrimzonSamurai said:
So Obama-Trump voters are like the political equivalent of zoo animals that can't figure out how to shit in the corner.
Click to expand...

They prefer to shit in each other's mouths.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Crab said:
I'm joking, you know. I agree with you that in retrospect, Sanders was the clear choice of those running.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure he'd win, either. A big issue with the primary was that nobody really wanted to run against Clinton. There wasn't any real competition.

Obama 2.0 likely would have swept the entire thing, swinging the House and Senate to the Democrats, the whole shebang. But no such candidate ran in 2016.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Plinko said:
I'm puzzled as to how these people would vote for a black man and then all of a sudden when a racist comes in they say, "I've been waiting for this the whole time!" It just doesn't make sense to me, I guess.

Perhaps, but democrats can counter this with effective messaging. They just haven't done it. On a side note, Biden is popular most likely because of this persona, and I still think he'd be the best choice in 2020 regardless of his age.
Click to expand...
Have you not seen the multiple articles on the subject? The data's there. "One of the good ones is very much a thing, and Trayvon/Ferguson/Kaepernick/BLM was all second term. Trump and brexit were both built on xenophobia.

To get effective messaging you need someone good at winning elections. Also someone good at bullshitting. Hillary was good at neither. Biden, Sanders, Warren will all be too goddamn old and need to sideline themselves.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
balladofwindfishes said:
I'm not really sure he'd win, either. A big issue with the primary was that nobody really wanted to run against Clinton.
Click to expand...

Neither of my posts were entirely serious. You'll have to excuse my sense of humour, it's quite puckish.

But if we are being serious, okay, let's have some introspection. We'll take it as a given that none of the candidates running in the Democratic primary were capable of winning. If so, this would be an enormous problem, because it makes the entire presidential campaign redundant. You're failing at the first hurdle. Clearly, there's a structural problem to overcome here: how can we encourage more candidates to run, and how can we make primaries more reflective of the marginal voter (an Obama -> Trump switcher) and thus primaries more likely to select candidates who can win in general elections?
 
K

kirblar

Member
Crab said:
Neither of my posts were entirely serious. You'll have to excuse my sense of humour, it's quite puckish.

But if we are being serious, okay, let's have some introspection. We'll take it as a given that none of the candidates running in the Democratic primary were capable of winning. If so, this would be an enormous problem, because it makes the entire presidential campaign redundant. You're failing at the first hurdle. Clearly, there's a structural problem to overcome here: how can we encourage more candidates to run, and how can we make primaries more reflective of the marginal voter (an Obama -> Trump switcher) and thus primaries more likely to select candidates who can win in general elections?
Click to expand...
Ban people from running in multiple Dem primaries. There's step one.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Crab said:
Neither of my posts were entirely serious. You'll have to excuse my sense of humour, it's quite puckish.

But if we are being serious, okay, let's have some introspection. We'll take it as a given that none of the candidates running in the Democratic primary were capable of winning. If so, this would be an enormous problem, because it makes the entire presidential campaign redundant. You're failing at the first hurdle. Clearly, there's a structural problem to overcome here: how can we encourage more candidates to run, and how can we make primaries more reflective of the marginal voter (an Obama -> Trump switcher) and thus primaries more likely to select candidates who can win in general elections?
Click to expand...

Don't build up people a decade before they run as shoe ins to be a future president would likely help.

Luckily no such person currently exists (to the extent of Hillary), so we shouldn't have this problem next time.
 
J

JP_

Banned
kirblar said:
If a survey respondent thinks the Dems favor the wealthy more they're a moron.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it probably has something to do with trump and his brand of populism. Clinton was seen as an out of touch elite before sanders was a thing. People don't pay attention to policy -- they use one's personification and slogans as shorthand.
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
sphagnum said:
Interesting little interview with a former climate denialist who helped form the ideological basis for that movement before switching sides. Most of it is just him talking about how he came to the light and converted, but this stuck out to me:



https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28...ed-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/
Click to expand...

The out should be that major companies in the US and abroad are asking for it and without we will fall behind. Not the "shrill environmentalists" but old school companies are investing billions in renewables and are demanding renewables. At the state level, governors, mayors and such have already made the switch safely, but at the national level they are still afraid.
 
K

kirblar

Member
JP_ said:
Sure, but it probably has something to do with trump and his brand of populism. Clinton was seen as an out of touch elite before sanders was a thing. People don't pay attention to policy -- they use personality and slogans as shorthand.
Click to expand...
Both Sanders and Trump were populists!
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
kirblar said:
Have you not seen the multiple articles on the subject? The data's there. "One of the good ones is very much a thing, and Trayvon/Ferguson/Kaepernick/BLM was all second term. Trump and brexit were both built on xenophobia.

To get effective messaging you need someone good at winning elections. Also someone good at bullshitting. Hillary was good at neither. Biden, Sanders, Warren will all be too goddamn old and need to sideline themselves.
Click to expand...

I haven't had much time at all over the past few months (grad school) so I actually haven't seen them.

I agree Biden will be old, but I don't see anyone stepping up underneath them that can at all relate except for maybe Franken (who always does meetings with farmers/small town folk) who doesn't seem to want to run, and Kander who technically hasn't won anything. I think Patty Murray could, but she doesn't seem like she is interested in jumping to the national level, either.

They're running out of time.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
dramatis said:
What retrospect? Sanders couldn't run in the general election. Are you looking into an alternate timeline?
Click to expand...

dramatis, why do you bother responding to posts you haven't even read properly?
 
K

kirblar

Member
Plinko said:
I haven't had much time at all over the past few months (grad school) so I actually haven't seen them.

I agree Biden will be old, but I don't see anyone stepping up underneath them that can at all relate except for maybe Franken (who always does meetings with farmers/small town folk) who doesn't seem to want to run, and Kander who technically hasn't won anything. They're running out of time.
Click to expand...
Search my thread start history and you'll find it.

Dems do not do well with people who have a long term national profile prior to running because it gives the GOP a target. The candidate needs to be new to voters.
 
J

JP_

Banned
kirblar said:
Both Sanders and Trump were populists!
Click to expand...
Yeah, the fact that sanders did so well in the primary should have been a warning for the GE. You guys are still so hung up about "he lost" that you're blind to the reality that "he did so much better than anyone expected."

Clinton wasn't known as a down to earth looking out for the little guy persona before sanders. She represented a dynasty of the elite. Sanders didn't invent that persona for her. Trump didn't need sanders for him to play against it.

dramatis said:
Says the guy who keeps trying to prescribe medicine while his own house is burning down around his ears.

Take care of your own country before you run around being a burden to others.
Click to expand...
really?
 
D

dramatis

Member
Crab said:
dramatis, why do you bother responding to posts you haven't even read properly?
Click to expand...
Says the guy who keeps trying to prescribe medicine while his own house is burning down around his ears.

Take care of your own country before you run around being a burden to others.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
dramatis said:
Says the guy who keeps trying to prescribe medicine while his own house is burning down around his ears.

Take care of your own country before you run around being a burden to others.
Click to expand...

I'm not a nationalist. I prescribe advice freely to all, fellow countrymen or otherwise. If you want to drop by UKPoliGAF, I'm sure we can have a nice chat about the internal politics of the Labour Party and who the next Labour leader should be (Angela Rayner plx).
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
As aggravating as Trump's hot take on the Civil War is this interview raises my hackles even further because every right-thinking man knows that Jackson was born in South Carolina.

Lousy tennesseans.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
I'm not really convinced Sanders actually did do that well in the primary, or that it was even surprising.

He basically did as well as any "not Hillary" candidate would do. We saw this in places like West Virginia, where he won by a lot, but it wasn't really anything other than "he isn't the she-devil butcher of Benghazi"

He was the "generic D" candidate in the primary. He just happened to build a following around it.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
balladofwindfishes said:
I'm not really convinced Sanders actually did do that well in the primary, or that it was even surprising.

He basically did as well as any "not Hillary" candidate would do. We saw this in places like West Virginia, where he won by a lot, but it wasn't really anything other than "he isn't the she-devil butcher of Benghazi"

He was the "generic D" candidate in the primary. He just happened to build a following around it.
Click to expand...

Do you want me to go back and quote PoliGAF from the start of the Democratic primaries? Because there's enough content for an A+++ wall of shame if you're claiming that what played out wasn't surprising.
 
C

Crimson_Gold

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
I'm not really convinced Sanders actually did do that well in the primary, or that it was even surprising.

He basically did as well as any "not Hillary" candidate would do. We saw this in places like West Virginia, where he won by a lot, but it wasn't really anything other than "he isn't the she-devil butcher of Benghazi"

He was the "generic D" candidate in the primary. He just happened to build a following around it.
Click to expand...

He promised to punish Wall Street. That made people happy. Do they know what punishing Wall Street is? Do they have any idea what punishing Wall Street will do? I have no idea. But giving the people a villain, made him a hero
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Crab said:
Do you want me to go back and quote PoliGAF from the start of the Democratic primaries? Because there's enough content for an A+++ wall of shame if you're claiming that what played out wasn't surprising.
Click to expand...

What was surprising about how well Bernie did? It's just a weird thing to me, because just 8 years before Bernie, someone actually did do surprisingly well against Hillary, which kind of makes Bernie losing (by a fair bit) not really all that impressive I guess?
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Crab said:
Do you want me to go back and quote PoliGAF from the start of the Democratic primaries? Because there's enough content for an A+++ wall of shame if you're claiming that what played out wasn't surprising.
Click to expand...

There were some surprise wins for sure (hi Michigan), but the most surprising thing was how long it took him to drop out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
The Democrats are spineless and worthless in opposing Trump & the GOP
8 9 10 11 12
571
59K
sugarhigh4242 replied
  • Locked
This week in Trump’s America: Week 2 by ThinkProgress
8
2K
stuminus3 replied
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton retweets Slate voter guide calling her most corrupt candidate
3
3K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
Blacklist 2014 - Hollywood's most liked scripts of the year
30
6K
Sho_Nuff82 replied
Top Bottom