EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3690
| 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. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 28 2016 00:30 Barrin wrote: Yup. How do you think this would affect a brokered convention? I'm not sure it would at all, past simply being brought up. It won’t because the convention won’t be brokered. At all. Hilary is going to get to 51% and then they are going to make her the nominee. If it was, it wouldn't help him at all, since he hasn't been part of that party for the majority of his political life. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22369 Posts
On April 28 2016 00:30 Barrin wrote: Yup. How do you think this would affect a brokered convention? I'm not sure it would at all, past simply being brought up. Is there still so much of a gap between Hillary's platform and Bernie's? How on earth do you see a brokered Democratic convention happen, please enlighten us. In what reality does Hillary not go into the convention with 51% or more. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On April 28 2016 00:41 Barrin wrote: In the one where Hillary does not go into the convention with 51% or more. What chance would you say this has of happening? What % of the remaining delegates do you think Sanders will get? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On April 28 2016 00:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Place your bets. Don't think he'll drop out rather challenge Trump to debates or announce Fiorina as his VP in hopes to grab undecideds. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/725330128264294400 VP for sure. 50/50 Fiorina or someone else. He's being very effectively framed as failed. Carly dropped out with like 1% support, lol. These attacks write themselves. Desperate. Desperate. Over and over spam that word and Cruz drops. I mean, why not try? Hopeless though. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The proportion of Americans who say a religious day of rest is personally important to them has dropped to 50%, reflecting growing secularism over recent decades, according to a new poll. A similar question asked in a 1978 survey showed 74% of respondents saying the Sabbath had personal religious significance. The new poll also showed a big fall in those saying they attended weekly religious services, from 55% in 1978 to 27% now. Jews were least likely to attend services and Mormons were most likely. The survey was carried out by YouGov on behalf of the Deseret News, a “family-oriented” news site based in Salt Lake City. It questioned 1,691 Americans across religious, racial, gender and age groups. The poll found that more than six in 10 Americans agreed that it was important for society to have a day of the week set aside for spiritual rest. YouGov adjusted the day depending on the respondent’s religious affiliation: Sunday for Christians, Saturday for Jews and Friday for Muslims. Young Americans – the so-called millennial generation – are the least likely to consider the Sabbath to have religious or spiritual meaning: 41% of those born in the run-up to the millennium said it was personally significant, compared to 58% of those born before 1945. Source | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Helps explain why social conservatism is a dead idea. This is a big reason I think Trump is a blessing in disguise for the GOP. No matter how you look at it, the current model is toast. They need a new brand. Trump is at least a different brand. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 28 2016 01:50 Mohdoo wrote: Helps explain why social conservatism is a dead idea. This is a big reason I think Trump is a blessing in disguise for the GOP. No matter how you look at it, the current model is toast. They need a new brand. Trump is at least a different brand. How is religiosity "Social Conservatism?" I had assumed social conservatism is => wanting a deregulation of social norms. In other words, keeping government out of the private/social space. Examples would be enforced separation of church and state but also no Civil Rights laws. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On April 28 2016 02:40 amazingxkcd wrote: Trump's foreign policy speech was pure and utter bliss. Explain. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On April 28 2016 02:44 Naracs_Duc wrote: How is religiosity "Social Conservatism?" I had assumed social conservatism is => wanting a deregulation of social norms. In other words, keeping government out of the private/social space. Examples would be enforced separation of church and state but also no Civil Rights laws. You aren't describing a functional coalition. There is no group of people who want principled social conservatism (see the election of Barry Goldwater). But there is a dwindling population of evangelical Christians who would vote their Values into Law that punishes others (see success of Bush2, but failure of Cruz). Values Voters have no limited government principles and seek unlimited enforcement of their interpretation of their own religion on other people. The Values Voters have nothing to do with limited government, principled social conservatism. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On April 27 2016 22:19 Mohdoo wrote: He needs 64% of all remaining delegates. That's almost 2:1. Clinton is up in CA and that's only gonna get better after last night. Delegates are awarded proportionally. Bernie has already indirectly said he's not running to win at this point. Clinton's win in NY clearly took a giant Dump on Sandernista morale, as evidenced by CT. Last night's results are lights out for the shaky support he had. When you run a campaign fueled by such intense rhetoric, you need to be winning. Losing so badly, using Sanders' rhetoric, makes people lose confidence, as we've seen. Looks like we were right all along. In the end, he missed his mark by quite a bit. Anyone looking for a morning laugh, I have got you covered: https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4gnyol/we_can_win_by_4060_pts_in_montana_north_dakota/ Very few of the Democratic voters in the polls I worked at were under 30. There were a number of independents who did not know Maryland Primaries have same-day registration (and I ended up directing a number over to re-enroll and sign up for provisional ballots), but otherwise, the Bernie "demographic" did not show up at my polling place at all. That being said, Bernie was landslided in MD so it's to be expected. In the under 30 crowd, I'd estimate there were more REP voters in the under 30 crowd than DEM voters, but the station I worked at was in a moderately Republican-slanted district. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9299 Posts
| ||
| ||
