EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2193
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24141 Posts
On August 12 2015 13:30 Mohdoo wrote: Real talk: Do you think Bernie Sanders would have to adjust his message at all if he wins the primary? Are there any candidates from the GOP that you think could beat him? A bit depending on his oppositions strengths and weaknesses, but one of the things that makes Bernie so powerful is his consistency. For the record he's already beating Trump in every heads up poll. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On August 12 2015 13:56 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is actually attempting to develop policies in the latest Hannidy interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzB_GWWJBAE Thanks for posting this. I feel like democrats are a little too hellbent on painting Trump as some wild shithead. He's clearly not nearly as bad as the media is trying to say he is. It's really weird to see the entire political scene try to push him down. Edit: lol Trump should do well with this: http://www.themadeinamericamovement.com/jobs/nabisco-to-cut-chicago-jobs-send-some-work-to-mexico/ | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 12 2015 15:02 Mohdoo wrote: Thanks for posting this. I feel like democrats are a little too hellbent on painting Trump as some wild shithead. He's clearly not nearly as bad as the media is trying to say he is. It's really weird to see the entire political scene try to push him down. Edit: lol Trump should do well with this: http://www.themadeinamericamovement.com/jobs/nabisco-to-cut-chicago-jobs-send-some-work-to-mexico/ I'm not on the Trump bandwagon, but he just went on a rant against Ford for the same thing. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On August 12 2015 15:02 Mohdoo wrote: Thanks for posting this. I feel like democrats are a little too hellbent on painting Trump as some wild shithead. He's clearly not nearly as bad as the media is trying to say he is. It's really weird to see the entire political scene try to push him down. Edit: lol Trump should do well with this: http://www.themadeinamericamovement.com/jobs/nabisco-to-cut-chicago-jobs-send-some-work-to-mexico/ But... Trump is a wild shithead. Seriously though. The guy is a joke. And one I'm increasingly sure he's in on. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24141 Posts
On August 12 2015 15:09 cLutZ wrote: I'm not on the Trump bandwagon, but he just went on a rant against Ford for the same thing. Noticed that too, when he isn't pandering to the racist and anti "PC" crowds for the primary vote he actually sounds like the best republican candidate. Still a little empty on how he would actually accomplish his goals, but I have no clue how he's done a lot of what he's done so maybe his Trump magic would work. He's even got Ailes and Fox News on the ropes. According to two high-level Fox sources, Ailes's diplomacy was the result of increasing concern inside Fox News that Trump could damage the network. Immediately following Thursday's debate, Fox was deluged with pro-Trump emails. The chatter on Twitter was equally in Trump’s favor. “In the beginning, virtually 100 percent of the emails were against Megyn Kelly,” one Fox source, who was briefed on the situation, told me. “Roger was not happy. Most of the Fox viewers were taking Trump’s side.” Things got worse for Ailes over the weekend. In a phone conversation, Trump told Sean Hannity that “he was never doing Fox again,” according to one person with knowledge of the call. The anti-Kelly emails, and threat of a boycott by Trump, seem to have pushed Ailes to defuse the war. One Fox personality told me that Fox producers gave instructions to tell in-house talent not to bring up Trump’s controversial comments that Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever" during the debate. According to one count, Fox only aired Trump’s comment once since Friday, while CNN mentioned it at least 50 times. In recent days, Ailes got a glimpse of what a Trump-less Fox News would look like. On Sunday, Trump called in to the four other public-affairs shows; this morning he gave interviews to Today and Morning Joe. Inside Fox, this was alarming. “This thing with Megyn got way ahead of Roger and bigger than he must have thought,” one Fox personality said. “Roger wants this to blow over,” another source added. “He’s upset that conservatives are mad at Fox.” Online, Ailes also took flak. Both the Drudge Report and Breitbart News carried pro-Trump headlines. Source On August 12 2015 15:15 Yoav wrote: But... Trump is a wild shithead. Seriously though. The guy is a joke. And one I'm increasingly sure he's in on. He's in on it for sure, it's brilliant if he can make it work. All he's got to do is secure the nomination and then be a hair to the right of Sanders (or Clinton) and Republicans won't have a choice. It's kind of scary and awesome at the same time. Clearly the parties are not in control of either race no matter how hard they are trying. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On August 12 2015 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote: I definitely don't have time to walk you through it but others have shown how the writer can't separate his partisan leanings from his analysis. I probably just have to let the clickbait go here though, as I don't have time to point out it's flaws in detail. On August 12 2015 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote: @Introvert: Apparently NH and the Boston Herald missed 538's memo  . Source The "inevitability" is cracking. Ah yes, get mad when I post articles with numbers, proceed to post article with numbers. Even the article acknowledged Sanders could win one or both of those states  But whatever.The people at 538 are most certainly establishment type Democrats, but their trade is in numbers, so it's interesting that now you are so incensed by what they write. I think it can color what they write, but it's fine for the most part and I don't see any problem with they have written recently. You'll have to recall that I don't particularly care which Democrat is eventually the nominee is, either. Edit: You have people at NR that kind of agree with you though http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422405/gops-trump-problem-will-fade-democrats-bernie-sanders-troubles-are-just-beginning | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On August 12 2015 15:18 GreenHorizons wrote: It's kind of scary and awesome at the same time. Clearly the parties are not in control of either race no matter how hard they are trying. It is kinda cool that the party machines are being given as much a run for their money as they are. That said, the Republicans at least haven't seemed super in-charge in the last few primaries. Last time they tried and failed to draft a better candidate than they ended up with, and the time before that they got the one guy nobody expected. (Bernie may be a longshot, but he's got nothing on McCain's journey in '08 for "didn't stand a fucking chance.") All that said, I'm still not betting on either Sanders or Trump. Trump's room for growth is very limited, and he's made a lot of enemies very quickly. If for some insane reason he wins the nomination, he dooms the Republicans by suppressing voter turnout among numerous demographics (anybody who is both Republican and feminist, Christian, pro-immigrant, etc.). As for Sanders, in theory he could have this. Many broadly popular positions, deeply and long held, with the correct emphasis and tone for a lot of voters. That said, I'm still pretty worried that Hillary will just play ultra-dirty to destroy him if it comes to that. The BLM thing was a shot across the bow. ("Your positions would be better for black people? Who gives a shit. Let's create some drama that reminds people you're an old, white dude.") It could, and with current poll numbers, probably will, get worse. For whatever it's worth, I, for one, won't believe the charges when they surface. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
Too soon, junior. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24141 Posts
On August 12 2015 18:27 coverpunch wrote: Getting excited about polls and the race as it stands now is doing exactly this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdqK1VAENg Too soon, junior. I'm naturally excited, but I'm not claiming victory yet. "Inevitability is cracking" not "shattered and gone" Anyway, if anyone's looking for a laugh about Bernie "Stans" Check out #AddBernie2Anything on twitter. | ||
Falling
Canada11583 Posts
On August 12 2015 13:49 ticklishmusic wrote: To that point, only 36% of voters in the poll think Sanders could beat a GOP candidate. Same poll (well, group) puts Trump at 18, Bush at 13, Kasich at 12. Kasich landed a big endorsement too, so I expect his numbers to go up. Trump sure as heck isn't going to win, and if Kasich can win new Hampshire and get some momentum, I see him upsetting Bush as the moderate establishment candidate. He's got all the charisma and none of the baggage of Jeb. Source I dunno. Kasich strikes me as the next Jon Hunstman- not a chance in the Republican primaries, but Democrats really, really like him. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 12 2015 22:34 farvacola wrote: Those familiar with what he's done to education in the state of Ohio are not. This was the same for Mitt for people from MA. We experienced him once and just laughed when he received the nomination. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On August 12 2015 22:46 ticklishmusic wrote: The polls coming out of Ohio say that a lot of people like him, and he won re-election by a lot though. That has more to do with the extreme impotence of the Ohio Democratic Party than Kasich's merits as a leader. Ohio has a lot of political problems, to put it plainly. | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
On August 12 2015 18:35 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm naturally excited, but I'm not claiming victory yet. "Inevitability is cracking" not "shattered and gone" Anyway, if anyone's looking for a laugh about Bernie "Stans" Check out #AddBernie2Anything on twitter. Sanders major weakness is that he is to similar to Obama. If history tells us anything, it shows that after 8 years of having a president in office, voters vote for the exact opposite of what the previous president was. After 8 years of Clinton we elect the exact opposite, Bush jr, After 8 years of him we elect the complete opposite Barack Obama. After Obama's last 8 years in office voters will go for the exact opposite of him. You just have to figure out who is the exact opposite of Obama and you know who will win. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And to be clear, most of these people don't talk about politics on the internet either. | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
On August 13 2015 00:12 Plansix wrote: That theory only works if the American people blame Obama for the gridlock in government, which might not happen. And that means independent voters, not people likely to vote in a primary. Sanders could if he can sell that he will work with people to make a functional government. People who thinking that fear of liberalism or the size of government are the main issues in the election are in for a rude awaking in the general. The people who decide elections presidential give zero shits about how should manage what, they just want things to work. People want problems solved and they are not overly concerned the ideology of how they get solved. If there is a pot hole in front of their house, the average voter doesn’t’ care if the federal government or local government fixes it. And to be clear, most of these people don't talk about politics on the internet either. Obamas last year in office is going to have a big impact on the election. If Obama's last year ends like George W Bushs or Bill Clintons last year dems are in trouble. If Obama turns around and gets something done like immigration reform dems will have a much better shot. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28866 Posts
On August 12 2015 13:12 whatisthisasheep wrote: Millennials have a habit of halfheartedly supporting a movement while not caring about the results. (ex Ron Paul Revolution, Kony 2012, Occupy Wall Street, etc.) Sanders events are just like concerts or sporting events, you go to hang out your buddy's, meet girls, and have a good time. After the event, they just go back to their lives. At that age most people care much more about going to the bar and getting laid than being involved in the political process. I don't know the statistics but I would guess voters between the ages of 18-30 vote alot less often then voters ages 45-60. Once you get married, have kids, start a business, and start paying a shitload of taxes you start to pay attention to the political process more. the people who go to the rallies are not the ones who halfheartedly support the movement, at the very least they show way more support than people who just vote. the issue is rather the opposite imo; that to win the presidential election, what matters more is how many people you can get to barely support you, because after decades of political malpractice, american elections largely seem to be considered a choice between the lesser of two evils. Sanders delights people who are really politically interested (compared to the norm), but is still much less able to reach out to the 'barely care enough to vote' crowd than a household name like Hillary. The one area where I'll agree with you is that (according to every statistic I've ever seen), 45-60 year olds vote more than 18-30 year olds. But the 18-30 year olds who actually show up for rallies, those have way higher voting turnout than any age-group average. It's just that even though 27k people show up in LA, that number is absolutely dwarfed by the what, 3 million~ eligible voters in the city, and even though 27k people cared enough about Bernie Sanders to go to his rally, that number doesn't stack up nicely compared to the 1.5 million people (I'm completely inventing numbers as I go because the actual numbers don't matter for the general argument as long as the trend holds true) who are familiar with Hillary but whose knowledge of Sanders is limited Sanders to him being a social democrat from Vermont. | ||
| ||
