• 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 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
Terrible is an exaggeration, a terrible candidate would never have even gotten as far as he has.

He hasn't gotten anywhere. He is the only candidate running against Hillary and she is wiping the floor with him even though he gets 100% of the anti-Hillary vote.

In a full field of candidates be would be at Kucinich levels of support.

Terrible is the right word.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Terrible is an exaggeration, a terrible candidate would never have even gotten as far as he has.

Frank's sorta right. Were the field larger he wouldn't be doing nearly as well. Remember when Biden was thinking about jumping in and he was in a statistical tie with Bernie? His staff just isn't good at this.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
But increased ethnic diversity could also have the effect of making white people more right-wing. Research by Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos suggests that when confronted with different racial groups, even liberal voters turn rightward. In one study, Enos sent pairs of native Spanish-speaking Latino men to ride commuter trains in Boston, surveyed their fellow riders' political views both before and after, and also surveyed riders on trains not used in the experiment as a control.

As America gets less white, inevitably more white citizens are going to come into regular contact with nonwhite citizens, which could lead to the kind of dynamics Enos describes on a mass scale. The problems don't arise as much when neighborhoods are well-integrated, but they're a major problem in cities and other areas that are racially diverse but geographically segregated — in other words, "in America." That's bad news for Democrats. "This difficulty is deeply structural and hard to overcome," Enos wrote me in an email. "As long as we live in a segregated, racially diverse society, a large portion of white voters will favor the party that does not include racial minorities."

Interesting

Frank's sorta right. Were the field larger he wouldn't be doing nearly as well. Remember when Biden was thinking about jumping in and he was in a statistical tie with Bernie? His staff just isn't good at this.

yup. His cocky staff is certainly not doing him any favors.

I see this argument so often and it makes absolutely no sense at all. Biden is politically more similar to Clinton than he is to Sanders. When Biden dropped out of the race, it wasn't Sanders' numbers that went up, it was Clinton's. Assuming that the majority of potential Democratic nominees would be more similar to Clinton than Sanders, a larger field would only help Sanders by dividing the 'moderate Democrat' vote.

Just curious. How in the world did you get interested in American elections/politics?
 

noshten

Member
Frank's sorta right. Were the field larger he wouldn't be doing nearly as well. Remember when Biden was thinking about jumping in and he was in a statistical tie with Bernie? His staff just isn't good at this.

So you are basing this on "what if", by the same token Sanders is hurt by other candidates not fragmenting the establishment vote and less mass media focus on the democratic primary.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Frank's sorta right. Were the field larger he wouldn't be doing nearly as well. Remember when Biden was thinking about jumping in and he was in a statistical tie with Bernie? His staff just isn't good at this.

I see this argument so often and it makes absolutely no sense at all. Biden is politically more similar to Clinton than he is to Sanders. When Biden dropped out of the race, it wasn't Sanders' numbers that went up, it was Clinton's. Assuming that the majority of potential Democratic nominees would be more similar to Clinton than Sanders, a larger field would only help Sanders by dividing the 'moderate Democrat' vote. Sanders would only be negatively affected by potential nominees who were more similar to him than Clinton (Warren, perhaps).
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I see this argument so often and it makes absolutely no sense at all. Biden is more similar to Clinton than he is to Sanders. When Biden dropped out of the race, it wasn't Sanders numbers that went up, it was Clintons. Assuming that the majority of potential Democratic nominees would be more similar to Clinton than Sanders, a larger field would only help Sanders.

Except that from all projections, done through polling, Biden would have swiped votes some votes from Sanders as well and propelled himself into second place almost instantly. Sanders would have also completely lost the media battle due to the last two titans of Dem politics going at it one last time.

That's not what my point was though. It's more that in a one-on-one situation he can't manage more than 30% of the vote. That means he either doesn't appeal to the rest of the electorate or that his campaign is so bad at this that they can't figure out how to show that appeal. It's more likely the latter, which is really really bad. Were the field bigger from the start that weakness would be far more prevalent, it's just hidden due to the size of the field.
 
I posted this in another thread, but I figure it was interesting enough to post in here too: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...nt-buy-these-candidates-love-least-so-n472166

It's been known how little Trump is spending on TV ads, but I had no idea how little he was actually spending compared to the other candidates.

infographic_16_5d5d2da9ecd8e34934e001e5c74c678e.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg


TV ad spending so far (through this week)


  • Team Bush: $28.9 million ($28.4M from Right to Rise Super PAC, $460K from campaign)
  • Team Rubio: $10.6 million ($8.5M from Conservative Solutions 501c4, $640K from Conservative Solutions Super PAC, $1.5M from campaign)
  • Team Clinton: $9.7 million ($9.5 million from campaign, $200K from Priorities USA Super PAC)
  • Team Kasich: $8 million (all from two outside groups)
  • Team Christie: $6.4 million ($6M from America Leads Super PAC, $400K from campaign)
  • Team Sanders: $4.9 million (all from campaign)
  • Team Carson: $2 million ($1.9M from campaign, $73K from 2016 Committee outside group)
  • Team Paul: $869,000 ($743K from America's Liberty Super PAC, $125K from campaign)
  • Team Cruz: $665,000 ($462K from campaign, rest from Super PACs)
  • Team Trump: $217,000 (all from campaign)

Bush + Rubio + Christie + Kasich = $53.9 million
Trump + Cruz = $882,000
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Except that from all projections, done through polling, Biden would have swiped votes some votes from Sanders as well and propelled himself into second place almost instantly. Sanders would have also completely lost the media battle due to the last two titans of Dem politics going at it one last time.

If Biden surpassed Sanders, it wouldn't be by taking votes from Sanders, it would be taking votes from Hillary. At the time Biden left the race, Sanders was taking about ~25% of the Dem vote, with ~10% undecided. That leaves only 65% to split between Biden and Clinton, meaning that either a) Biden ahead of Sanders implies a 35-30-25-10 split between Clinton/Biden/Sanders/not sure range, which is a much smaller gap between Sanders and the frontrunner than the status quo and thus makes e.g. a surprise upset in Iowa easier, or b) Biden ahead of Sanders implies Clinton behind or equal Sanders, akin to 40-25-25-10. a) is definitely better than now even if Sanders is technically in third as opposed to second because he only needs 10% of the vote to take the lead rather than 20% like he does currently, and b) isn't really any different to now.

That's not what my point was though. It's more that in a one-on-one situation he can't manage more than 30% of the vote. That means he either doesn't appeal to the rest of the electorate or that his campaign is so bad at this that they can't figure out how to show that appeal. It's more likely the latter, which is really really bad. Were the field bigger from the start that weakness would be far more prevalent, it's just hidden due to the size of the field.

It's literally neither. He can't manage more than 35% because he only has access to ~75% of the electorate. 35% from 75% (over half) is pretty good. His campaign has figured out the best way to get that appeal out given time/money/volunteer constraints - it's by winning Iowa, which is what they're trying their damndest to do, and I don't think they're doing bad at this given they've gone from polling *% in Iowa about 6 months ago to an Clinton having an average lead of ~13% as the polls show now (and that's including the weird Monmouth outlier with Clinton at +22 when CNN and Quinnipac found her at +9 and +7). A wider field of candidates-more-similar-to-Clinton increases the chance Sanders wins Iowa (see a) above), so a wider field would only help him (assuming a wider field isn't candidates-more-similar-to-Sanders, like Warren). I don't think a Sanders victory in Iowa is off the cards - the odds are hovering around 3/1.

I mean, I don't think they'll win, but saying Sanders has had an ineffective campaign is ludicrous. There's a reason there's literally no comparable Sanders-figure in recent history - and no, Dean isn't one, outside of his stance on the war he was not comparable.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Serious question: What can Reince Priebus legitimately do? What tools does he have?

Chuck Todd does not know. They can stop his nomination forcing him to go third party delegitimatizing the process in the making or nominate him and run a third party candidacy of their own.
 
Daniel B·;188429888 said:
Poppycock!

Bernie's level of popular support is growing stronger by the day (he had 28,000 fired up supporters attending his Portland, Ore rally), and that's despite the press blackout and negative TV coverage.

These supporters will likely dwarf those that will see this "blanket" of negative TV ads, and we are so ready for the challenge :).

I'm from Portland, and I can tell you that the politics of Portland are not even remotely representative of the USA as a whole. Bernie doing well in extremely liberal enclaves is no more an indication of his appeal with the general population than Trump's allure with neo-Nazis proves he can win the Presidency. I like Sanders' policies, but I have very strong doubts about him in a general election; he's SO easy to portray as an ornery old coot shouting at the sky.
 

thefro

Member
Chuck Todd does not know. They can stop his nomination forcing him to go third party delegitimatizing the process in the making or nominate him and run a third party candidacy of their own.

I don't think there's any laws stopping Trump from giving a delegate $1 million to flip their vote to him (for one example). Party nomination process is a weird thing.
 
On a totally random note, I went to Sarah Palin's Facebook page and her current profile pic cracked me up.

xYqwPq4.jpg


Henceforth I shall refer to Sarah Palin as "Sweet Freedom."
 

Makai

Member
Chuck Todd does not know. They can stop his nomination forcing him to go third party delegitimatizing the process in the making or nominate him and run a third party candidacy of their own.
If the GOP runs a third party (probably Mike Bloomberg lol) against the nominee, the party is in for some serious restructuring soon after.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I see it as an 11th dimensional chess-play by Emperor Hussein and his consort Hillary.

Yep. He knew this would happen and just did it anyway. It's a pure troll move and I love it.

If the GOP runs a third party (probably Mike Bloomberg lol) against the nominee, the party is in for some serious restructuring soon after.

The NRA would never let it be Bloomberg. They'd sooner burn down the whole country than let him get anywhere near the White House. As shitty as he is on a lot of issues, he's good on gun control.
 
If the GOP runs a third party (probably Mike Bloomberg lol) against the nominee, the party is in for some serious restructuring soon after.
Party needs a restructure and a split. The Trump-Tea Party wing of the base is unteneble for the well being of the party. When the GOP loses in 2016, I don't expect this group to go quietly into the night.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
By "disqualifying" Trump publicly, the White House effectively consolidates every kneejerk anti-Obama Republican behind Trump.

Which is most of them.

It's actually kind of brilliant.

It really is. Obama is using their own stupidity against them. It's like he's finally decided that the Key and Peele sketch could probably be replicated in real life and gave it a try.
 

Makai

Member
I don't even know what the two parties look like if there's a split. Obviously, we're not headed towards a one party system. New coalitions will be formed but I don't know which cleavages within the Democratic party can be exploited by neo-Republicans.
 
I remember when PPP did a poll and included just about every Democratic candidate possible and Clinton received around 40% and Sanders in the low 20s. Even at the nadir of her campaign when the press were talking about a criminal investigation and Biden was enjoying widespread public sympathy and Bernie was getting historic crowds she never fell below 40% in the RCP/HuffPo averages. And back in 2007/8 she never fell below 35% - Obama won by surpassing her, not by her losing support. The truth is Clinton's floor has been and always will be higher than Sanders ceiling, whether there's 2 candidates or 10 candidates in the field.
It's literally neither. He can't manage more than 35% because he only has access to ~75% of the electorate. 35% from 75% (over half) is pretty good. His campaign has figured out the best way to get that appeal out given time/money/volunteer constraints - it's by winning Iowa, which is what they're trying their damndest to do, and I don't think they're doing bad at this given they've gone from polling *% in Iowa about 6 months ago to an Clinton having an average lead of ~13% as the polls show now (and that's including the weird Monmouth outlier with Clinton at +22 when CNN and Quinnipac found her at +9 and +7). A wider field of candidates-more-similar-to-Clinton increases the chance Sanders wins Iowa (see a) above), so a wider field would only help him (assuming a wider field isn't candidates-more-similar-to-Sanders, like Warren).

I mean, I don't think they'll win, but saying Sanders has had an ineffective campaign is ludicrous. There's a reason there's literally no comparable Sanders-figure in recent history - and no, Dean isn't one, outside of his stance on the war he was not comparable.
You keep doing these ratio things, but I don't see how Sanders inability to reach 25% of the Democratic primary electorate is anything other than a poor reflection on him as a candidate. It says everything that he's been in congress for 30 years and so few voters, and particularly minorities, know about his record (compared to say Warren who drew more attention to the same issues in a few months than he managed in decades). You can't run in a Democratic primary and wait two months to do outreach when BLM challenge you (c.f. Clinton's making the first speech of her campaign about criminal justice reform); in fact you can't wait till you become a candidate to start doing outreach. Obama was reaching out for well over a year before he became a candidate, and Clinton's been at it for 20+ years.

There is a good comparison to Sanders: Bill Bradley. Their polling numbers are eerily similar. Comparing him to Dean gives him too much credit, when Dean managed to lead nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire for several months, and actually sent the establishment into a panic.

I think there's generally a natural ceiling of around 30% for liberal insurgents that Sanders is bumping against (Obama only overcame this by winning 90% of African Americans and appealing to moderates), but Sanders has certainly been hindered by being a poor campaigner. He did well in the summer when only rallies mattered, but he's fallen apart when he's had to do debates, town halls, and traditional coffee shop retail-politicking, which Clinton has become very polished at. This for example is just political malpractice:
Sanders spox asks reporters to "stay on topic" at upcoming press conference in Baltimore. "Don't ask about ISIS. It's not on topic."
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/674253329728462852
 

teiresias

Member
If the GOP runs a third party (probably Mike Bloomberg lol) against the nominee, the party is in for some serious restructuring soon after.

Everyone was worried about Trump running a third party campaign, but I think it would be amazing if the establishment/party actually ran a sacrificial third party candidate (though who they could convince to do that I don't know) just to show the rest of the voting public that "We know we're screwed this cycle, but seriously, this 'official' candidate isn't really what we stand for" to try and save some kind of face moving forward. Granted, that's just a flailing way to try and salvage what is already probably a decimated reputation for the GOP among minorities.
 

HylianTom

Banned
By "disqualifying" Trump publicly, the White House effectively consolidates every kneejerk anti-Obama Republican behind Trump.

Which is most of them.

It's actually kind of brilliant.
I'm stuck in jury duty and we have a short break..

Obama condemned his comments?

Yee-haw! Incoming poll bump!
 

User 406

Banned
Bad move by Obama. Constitutionally, he's required to invoke "no backsies", or else Trump can just declare "I'm rubber, you're glue", thereby forcing Obama to resign the Presidency. Although considering his deep depression from being unable to win from Republicans the approval that he never received from his absent father, perhaps that was his goal in the first place. Something about Michelle leaving him and Hillary now having a chance, yadda yadda, am I doing it right
 

Makai

Member
Everyone was worried about Trump running a third party campaign, but I think it would be amazing if the establishment/party actually ran a sacrificial third party candidate (though who they could convince to do that I don't know) just to show the rest of the voting public that "We know we're screwed this cycle, but seriously, this 'official' candidate isn't really what we stand for" to try and save some kind of face moving forward.
The shortlist definitely includes Jeb and Kasich. Mitt and Huntsman get a courtesy call.
 
Bad move by Obama. Constitutionally, he's required to invoke "no backsies", or else Trump can just declare "I'm rubber, you're glue", thereby forcing Obama to resign the Presidency. Although considering his deep depression from being unable to win from Republicans the approval that he never received from his absent father, perhaps that was his goal in the first place. Something about Michelle leaving him and Hillary now having a chance, yadda yadda, am I doing it right

yes. that was perfect.
 

teiresias

Member
The shortlist definitely includes Jeb and Kasich. Mitt and Huntsman get a courtesy call.

Well, I don't mean in terms of the blanket list of candidates the GOP could try and recruit, I mean who out of those people would willingly go into this knowing full-stop that this was a no-win and probably career ending endeavor simply to save a party that's thrown themselves into the grinder.
 

Makai

Member
Well, I don't mean in terms of the blanket list of candidates the GOP could try and recruit, I mean who out of those people would willingly go into this knowing full-stop that this was a no-win and probably career ending endeavor simply to save a party that's thrown themselves into the grinder.
All of their careers are over except Kasich. I think Jeb would be a good sport.
 
There is no argument for Sanders being more electable than Clinton. Clinton is a well known candidate who appeals to multiple subgroups of the democrat base. She is not an "exciting" candidate in many ways but the historical nature of her campaign alone will fire many people up.

Sanders is a socialist who will be running on raising top rates to at least 60%. He refuses to take PAC money which means he'd likely be facing a 1.5-2 billion dollar GOP assault without being able to match half of that. He is in his 70s. He inspires no interest or confidence from multiple democrat groups, especially minorities. I can go on and on. He is incapable of winning an election in this America. Especially with fears over ISIS.

But why are we discussing this. He won't win 5 primary states. I wouldn't be stunned if he only wins 1 or 2.
 
There is no argument for Sanders being more electable than Clinton. Clinton is a well known candidate who appeals to multiple subgroups of the democrat base. She is not an "exciting" candidate in many ways but the historical nature of her campaign alone will fire many people up.

Sanders is a socialist who will be running on raising top rates to at least 60%. He refuses to take PAC money which means he'd likely be facing a 1.5-2 billion dollar GOP assault without being able to match half of that. He is in his 70s. He inspires no interest or confidence from multiple democrat groups, especially minorities. I can go on and on. He is incapable of winning an election in this America. Especially with fears over ISIS.

But why are we discussing this. He won't win 5 primary states. I wouldn't be stunned if he only wins 1 or 2.
I think a lot if the "Sanders is more electable!" comes from anecdotal evidence like (my personal example) our family friend in bumfuck Arkansas who hates Obama and Hillary but claims to like Bernie. I don't believe for a second that any Republican voter who freaks out at Obama's supposed socialism would stay in Bernie's camp if it came down to it. They love guns, hate abortion and hate brown people. Could Bernie reach them on economic issues? No, when has that ever worked? For a great deal of people the social issues mean a no-go. When they think of liberals they think of gay pride parades that kidnap your children, force abortions on them and hand you a free Qur'an afterwards. It's a dirty word.

You know who else is electable according to the current polls? Ben Carson. That wouldn't hold and neither would Bernie.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
There is no argument for Sanders being more electable than Clinton. Clinton is a well known candidate who appeals to multiple subgroups of the democrat base. She is not an "exciting" candidate in many ways but the historical nature of her campaign alone will fire many people up.

Sanders is a socialist who will be running on raising top rates to at least 60%. He refuses to take PAC money which means he'd likely be facing a 1.5-2 billion dollar GOP assault without being able to match half of that. He is in his 70s. He inspires no interest or confidence from multiple democrat groups, especially minorities. I can go on and on. He is incapable of winning an election in this America. Especially with fears over ISIS.

But why are we discussing this. He won't win 5 primary states. I wouldn't be stunned if he only wins 1 or 2.

So harsh yet so effective.

In other news Matt Bevin was sworn in today as Governor. Let the gutting of Kynect commence.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
DHS should be the very first on the GOP's federal government chopping block.

But of course it's not, because Republican expansions of government are the good kind.

Exactly. I can't seem to figure out what it's supposed to do that something like the FBI doesn't already do. It seems like it's there to just make things more confusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom