-
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 2016 |OT5| Archdemon Hillary Clinton vs. Lice Traffic Jam
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Or like canceling cause someone spoke spanish, OMG how dare they.
I'm not really. Trump's going to get at least 45% of the vote in November. This election is going to be a sad eye-opener. After near-ideal conditions for Dems in 2008, facing a ticket with Palin on it, with a once-in-a-generation nominee on our side, I wouldn't be surprised if 45-46% is his base.
I'm not. Republicans always come home. Always. It's so ridiculous how people talk about fracturing in that party; the mechanisms that drive them are always so much more effective in unifying and motivating the party than what we've seen with democrats, for example.
I'm okay with the results so far. I thought I'd be more nervous. Clinton maintains her favorability edge with both Trump and petulant Bernie attacking her and is still up despite trump's nomination bump. If there's not a 2 point swing or so post Clinton wrapping it up (hopefully tonight) I'd be a little more worried.
I'm impressed at how Cruz dropped out early once it was obvious there was no path for him. He could easily have stuck it out and tried to make it about issues at the core of conservatism. But he didn't. Gee.
cartoon_soldier
Member
What's the turnout percentages for that NBC poll?
plagiarize
Banned
He didn't drop out until it was mathematically impossible for him to win. If he was as close to Trump as Sanders is to Clinton he would still be going.
He was at a much lower chance of winning and still in the race.
So no, he didn't drop early at all. He only dropped once he'd lost, and it became clear that Republicans were going to support the person with the most delegates even if they didn't have a majority.
If we're gonna see a big Clinton bump it's likely going to be after the convention. Need to give the Bernie supporters time to come home.
I honestly don't think so. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump got a lot of support from immigrants who came here legally and *do* see the illegal waves as a bunch of rapists and criminals at worst, cheats and line-skippers at best. I can empathize with their frustration that they played the game and a politician would reward those who broke the rules, although i feel like no one ever said "hey let's make the legal immigration system easier", except maybe Rubio.
That's not true. He stayed in for a while after he was eliminated. The whole plan was to deny trump the necessary delegates. That's why he was doing all that work on the second ballot.
He dropped once it was clear there would be no second ballot. Like with the democrats right now!
Edit: maybe we are saying the same thing
Beyond campaign finance reform and maybe infrastructure spending, she shouldn't give Bernie a goddamn thing at this point. Ship's sailed brah.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Oregon C+2
Kentucky C+6
Kentucky C+6
plagiarize
Banned
Perhaps. Apart from the bit where you give Ted Cruz a shred of credit. Unless that bit was sarcasm.
Why do people think Clinton takes Oregon? Gut feeling? Polls I'm not aware of? The sane prediction is Clinton takes Kentucky and Sanders takes Oregon imho. I'd love for Clinton to win both and I think it would give Sanders a good chance to step out of the race if he's looking for one. I doubt he is, but we'd know for sure at least.
But I feel that we're looking at a split. Oregon just looks too demographically favorable to Sanders.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Priorities USA Trump Ads
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkeLYDZdPSc&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JekzM26TF3Q
First one is decent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkeLYDZdPSc&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JekzM26TF3Q
First one is decent.
nature boy
Member
Are there enough delegates on stake today for Clinton to reach the majority, superdelegates included?
This should end today, whatever the outcome.
This should end today, whatever the outcome.
Aaron Strife
Banned
No, not even if Clinton won all of them.
Maybe if she had 100 superdelegate endorsements waiting in the wings.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Benchmark had her ahead in Oregon with some type of outlook/simulation thing and a few recent polls showed the same thing.
balladofwindfishes
Member
What's this I keep hearing about Romney working on a third party bid. It's been passed around a lot the last few days, but it seems way too late for it to go anywhere. Apparently they have funding and stuff sorted out.
RustyNails
Member
Ehh Nevada doesn't bother me too much. I mean we know the outcome. Bernie supporters are still in denial stage. I'm not sure if antagonizing them further will help the Democratic nominee in November.
Kentucky +1 Hill
Oregon +7 Bernard
Kentucky +1 Hill
Oregon +7 Bernard
I actually overheard someone who was a superdelegate in 2008 (and who happened to be a pretty prominent one then) and who is big on Team Clinton talking about some sort of roll-out after Kentucky last week. Wasn't sure if that was against Trump or a superdelegate roll-out since I didn't hear the context, but this person was someone who would definitely know what's going on.
The perks of doing tech support for the corporate board meeting.
nature boy
Member
Yeah just saw the calendar and not enough delegates.
Clinton is 140 or so delegates away and it would suck if this dragged until June 7 over 40 or 50 delegates out of 2400 delegates.
Trump gets 28% of Latino voters? (NBCNews/SurveyMonkey).
Needs to go down.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/31280461...5-9-5-15?secret_password=agyWh3Vh62bCRN4ztTac
Edit:
I keep trying to tell you guys and gals. Hispanics are such a broad base including many who don't identify or necessarily sympathize wholly with Mexicans. We also have many with strong conservative ties or patriarchal belief systems who don't like Hillary (even if they don't care for Trump).
It's why I think Hillary needs to put Perez on the ticket. Lock down this diverse demographic with someone who can best try to reach out to the various Latino communities.
balladofwindfishes
Member
More and more I want Perez as VP. He seems perfect for it.
I like the second one a lot better. Really points out the toxicity. Too easy for some people to agree with what he says in the first one.
nature boy
Member
New G.E. poll:
https://morningconsult.com/2016/05/poll-trump-barely-leads-trump-nationally/
Clinton 42%
Trump 40%
Don't know/No opinion 17%
Edit: Can't get the crosstabs. Will update when I do.
https://morningconsult.com/2016/05/poll-trump-barely-leads-trump-nationally/
Clinton 42%
Trump 40%
Don't know/No opinion 17%
Edit: Can't get the crosstabs. Will update when I do.
cartoon_soldier
Member
She definitely has super delegate endorsements waiting in the wings.
Trump's rise was built on excluding all Latino immigrants with a wall, not just Mexicans. Immigration is the next big congressional battle. The 2012 autopsy was about this growing base. This primary season was largely about Latinos (and minorities in general).
I really think Hillary needs to make this election about the future of Latinos in America, more than just "Trump is terrible". That's not enough to increase Latino turnout to what it needs to be.
Of course this may just be my own emotional biases talking as a Latino. I recognize that.
I really think Hillary needs to make this election about the future of Latinos in America, more than just "Trump is terrible". That's not enough to increase Latino turnout to what it needs to be.
Of course this may just be my own emotional biases talking as a Latino. I recognize that.
Orbis Tabula
Member
You know what I'm most tired of this election, amongst all the tiring bullshit? That damn "Orange is the New Black!" joke. We get it. We had a laugh. Stop it now.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
This is so true. I see so many people lumping Mexican/south americans with Caribbean Latinos like DOminicans and Puerto Ricans. I know more than a handful of Dominicans who love Trump. They see him as that 80's bad ass business man they all want to be. Also Immigration is not that important to those not coming from south america, shit a lot non mexicans latinos can be just as intolerant as the GOP.
Thank fully I'm in NYC, these trump votes wont matter much, but I can see this being an issue in Florida, and PA.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I still want to see a good pollster do old fashioned landline/mobile survey live interviewer survey.
This argument seems incoherent. "Latinos are all different and have a variety of positions, therefore you need to put a Latino on the ticket because they will all like that guy!"
I don't mind Perez, although I wish he had campaign experience, but I am just as unconvinced that he will win Latinos for the Democrats as I was that Rubio or Cruz would win Latinos for the GOP.
brainchild
Banned
Considereding the limited exposure that this community had regarding the convention on Saturday, I'm going to post what I posted from the OT thread...
Let me first preface this post by saying that I do not condone the egregious and violent acts of the Bernie extremists who were clearly over the line with their behavior with regard to their harassment and intimidation toward state officials (most of this took place after the convention). They should be held responsible for their actions under the fullest extent of the law. I should also state that I would be totally fine with a change of rules during the convention to allow the delegate count to reflect the popular vote of the original caucus, so long as that decision is made by at least a 2/3's majority of the body (per the original rules for temporary changes). Considering how shitty the caucus process is, a change to reflect the popular vote seems totally fair and appropriate to me.
Having said that, the complaints brought forth by the NSDP are nearly a complete fabrication of the events that took place DURING the convention (what happened after the convention is a different story). The convention was documented in its entirety with the corroboration of multiple eye witnesses through the use of periscope, and at no point did any group of people press against the dais. After all, the dais was laden with security detail for the majority of the event. Furthermore, while there were vulgarities and obscenities thrown out from time to time, it did not remotely reflect the general conduct at the convention for most of the duration of the meeting. I've personally reviewed hours of recordings of the convention, spanning from its commencement to its conclusion, and I can say that most of what the NSDP has asserted in that letter is patently false, and nearly anyone who was present at the event or watching it on periscope would agree with me. Even Hillary supporters present at the convention can attest to this.
Now, here's a clear, concise video revealing what ACTUALLY happened:
https://youtu.be/LmWt4aCTRG0
Here's a timeline of what happened:
https://m.reddit.com/r/SandersForPr...ada_democratic_convention_mega_thread/d36591z
The main issue here isn't that a recount wasn't conducted, or that Bernie supporters didn't get their way; Hillary should have won, plain and simple. The issue here is a complete violation of state party rules:
- Meeting was convened before scheduled time and rules were changed before a representative majority could even be assembled (this would be like accepting election results before the polls closed)
- Minority report that challenged the commission's report was not investigated before final decisions were made
- Points of Order went completely unacknowledged
- Motions were left on the floor at the conclusion of the convention
Anyone who knows anything about parliamentary procedure knows that the points above are clear violations of procedure, which would be fine if the NSDP rules were some kind of exception, but they're not.
All current evidence points to misconduct on behalf of both the NSDP and Sanders supporters. This is not even remotely one-sided and anyone suggesting as much is using logic that quite literally flies in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Let me first preface this post by saying that I do not condone the egregious and violent acts of the Bernie extremists who were clearly over the line with their behavior with regard to their harassment and intimidation toward state officials (most of this took place after the convention). They should be held responsible for their actions under the fullest extent of the law. I should also state that I would be totally fine with a change of rules during the convention to allow the delegate count to reflect the popular vote of the original caucus, so long as that decision is made by at least a 2/3's majority of the body (per the original rules for temporary changes). Considering how shitty the caucus process is, a change to reflect the popular vote seems totally fair and appropriate to me.
Having said that, the complaints brought forth by the NSDP are nearly a complete fabrication of the events that took place DURING the convention (what happened after the convention is a different story). The convention was documented in its entirety with the corroboration of multiple eye witnesses through the use of periscope, and at no point did any group of people press against the dais. After all, the dais was laden with security detail for the majority of the event. Furthermore, while there were vulgarities and obscenities thrown out from time to time, it did not remotely reflect the general conduct at the convention for most of the duration of the meeting. I've personally reviewed hours of recordings of the convention, spanning from its commencement to its conclusion, and I can say that most of what the NSDP has asserted in that letter is patently false, and nearly anyone who was present at the event or watching it on periscope would agree with me. Even Hillary supporters present at the convention can attest to this.
Now, here's a clear, concise video revealing what ACTUALLY happened:
https://youtu.be/LmWt4aCTRG0
Here's a timeline of what happened:
https://m.reddit.com/r/SandersForPr...ada_democratic_convention_mega_thread/d36591z
The main issue here isn't that a recount wasn't conducted, or that Bernie supporters didn't get their way; Hillary should have won, plain and simple. The issue here is a complete violation of state party rules:
- Meeting was convened before scheduled time and rules were changed before a representative majority could even be assembled (this would be like accepting election results before the polls closed)
- Minority report that challenged the commission's report was not investigated before final decisions were made
- Points of Order went completely unacknowledged
- Motions were left on the floor at the conclusion of the convention
Anyone who knows anything about parliamentary procedure knows that the points above are clear violations of procedure, which would be fine if the NSDP rules were some kind of exception, but they're not.
All current evidence points to misconduct on behalf of both the NSDP and Sanders supporters. This is not even remotely one-sided and anyone suggesting as much is using logic that quite literally flies in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Trump gets 28% of Latino voters? (NBCNews/SurveyMonkey).
Needs to go down.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/31280461...5-9-5-15?secret_password=agyWh3Vh62bCRN4ztTac
Edit:
I'm really surprised he does better with Hispanic voters than black voters. That 28% is perplexing.
I understand but I honestly think racial representation plays a big part in voters minds. I can see how that reads as pandering through a token candidate, but I think a Latino who speaks Spanish could really help some Latinos in a way that's hard to explain.
Goddammit, why do white people always manage to disappoint me? I always thought it was just the south...
Orbis Tabula
Member
Is registering for a party really so hard that requiring people to so if prior to the primary is such a hurdle? I just don't understand this argument against closed primaries.
benicillin
Banned
It's not that registering is hard, just that many people don't know the deadlines (especially if the deadlines are completely crazy like NY.) Voter registration should be same-day or automatic anyway.
jack_package_200
Banned
People want to participate in the primary while remaining a special independent snowflake.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I definitely think we could make it easier, but that's rarely the argument I see people make when they call for open primaries. The argument I see most is "anyone should be able to vote in the primary" to which the obvious answer is "they can! They just have to sign up first!"
This is what I can't help but conclude. If you want a say in the Democratic primary, become a Democrat. If you want to remain independent, you don't get to tell Democrats what to do. You shouldn't be demanding to have it both ways. It's not as though you lose anything when you register Democrat, other than your ability to say "I'm actually an independent, and not affiliated with any party!"
Beer Monkey
Member
Open primaries are terrible. Tons of Republicans might as well try to sabotage the Democratic nominee from here on out in open primaries, since it's already a done deal that Trump will win in pledged delegates therefore their vote doesn't matter in their own party's primary.
Practically the only people defending open primaries and caucuses this cycle are those that think their candidate benefits from them, and they can't even come to agreement on that!
benicillin
Banned
It's probably the argument they think they're making but many people probably don't understand the difference. The country fails at voter education.
I think there's a very different argument between voter registration for the general vs. the primaries. Same day for general is very reasonable. Same day for primaries can be used to skew the nomination of either party. I think a few months before the voting day is reasonable. As long as it's easy to register to begin with, setting a deadline makes sense in the context of what primaries are.
benicillin
Banned
I think the risk that results could be skewed is far outweighed from the benefits of making voter registration as easy as possible to encourage and support higher turnout.
Consider a state like NY: the Dems outnumber the Republicans to the degree that if both primaries were open the Dems could easily pick the winner of both contests.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Yeah, too many people have no clue how it all works. And, I mean, I get it, because I'm still learning new stuff about it every day. It's confusing.
What we should do is mandate that food companies print information about voting requirements and registration deadlines on all of their products. I mean, it may not be relevant information when it comes to what food you should buy, but some people want to know it, and a better educated populace is good!
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Joe, your poem the other day was nothing short of beautiful.
- Status