Jump to content

US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected


Rippounet

Recommended Posts

Just now, SpaceChampion said:

I think Trump would label him Deep State Pete and walk away with a win.

He's going to label everyone fucking something, so how does this matter? Any politician will get the "Deep State", "Swamp", etc. treatment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Darryk said:

It would be a pretty big upset for Buttigieg to take it, and he'd surely replace Biden as the leading candidate among the "moderate" wing, which would be an impressive feat considering his lack of name recognition.

 

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I imagine Buttigieg will consolidate the voters for moderates like Klobuchar, Bennett, etc., and maybe will deflate Bloomberg's growing numbers somewhat, but I have a feeling that he won't necessarily pull a lot of support from Biden voters.

I think it's way too premature to assume based on this result Buttigieg is going to consolidate the "moderate" wing going forward.  Even in regular times (the before long long ago), New Hampshire often has a very quick reaction to the Iowa results.  Remember the polling after Iowa but before NH in 2008?  Everyone thought Obama was gonna run away with.  NH's electorate - particularly the Dem electorate in terms of primary history - has a tendency to be contrarian.  And now, Biden's expectations are low.  So, we'll see.  I wouldn't publish his political obituary just yet (haven't checked cable news yet, are they doing that?)

9 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I doing actually think it's a conspiracy though, just that it looks terrible which really isn't what they need right now. How on earth did he think it was a good idea to claim victory with none of the results released? Even if it turns out true, that's a terrible idea.

Oh sure, totally agree with your points on the appearance of impropriety in terms of Buttigieg staffer's wife connection and just the name of the app.  That's why I never mentioned it.  I do think those are just (somewhat avoidable and therefore dumb) coincidences though.  The fact the app's developer is married to someone associated with one of the campaigns is pretty likely to happen - those are the type of people that would make such an app and be socialized in those circles.

As for Buttigieg claiming victory without any results - why the hell not?  That's the perfect time for any politician to claim some type of victory -- when there's no actual evidence to contradict them.  And, at least so far, doesn't seem like it was much of a stretch, so won't hurt him.  Pretty much every candidate capitalized on the ability to hyperbolize more so with no results last night, expectedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A front runner could win without much of a contest, and inversely I can easily see this leading to a contested convention. Perhaps it would be better to have four to six primary dates based on regions, with like two weeks separating them.

Meh, who gives a shit about the "process."  Pick a nominee and move on.  That's how they used to do it before they let us plebeians vote on the nominees.  The smoke-filled backrooms didn't entail a recurring schedule.  If no one gets 50+1 percent, which yes likely would happen many times, you do it like a "top-two" or jungle primary system.  Have a run-off, maybe doesn't have to be top-two, establish a threshold.  And go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's way too premature to assume based on this result Buttigieg is going to consolidate the "moderate" wing going forward.  Even in regular times (the before long long ago), New Hampshire often has a very quick reaction to the Iowa results.  Remember the polling after Iowa but before NH in 2008?  Everyone thought Obama was gonna run away with.  NH's electorate - particularly the Dem electorate in terms of primary history - has a tendency to be contrarian.  And now, Biden's expectations are low.  So, we'll see.  I wouldn't publish his political obituary just yet (haven't checked cable news yet, are they doing that?)

I think we're actually on the same page wrt how things play out, although I probably worded mine awkwardly. But essentially I was agreeing that Buttigieg won't pick up a ton of Biden voters, because I don't think they have a ton of overlap in voter demographics.

My hypothesis was that if Biden's support collapses after less-than-stellar performances in Iowa, NH and Nevada, Buttigieg still most likely wouldn't consolidate most or even many of Biden's voters. But I don't believe Biden will collapse just because of this, and he likely did benefit from the chaos surrounding the release, as a 4th place finish last night would be the only thing talked about today.

Also, the conspiracy theories are stupid, and so was Buttigieg's campaign with the Shadow Inc. stuff, and they should have known better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I think once Biden and the Obama nostalgia stops sucking the air out of the room, African Americans are going to go to Bernie over Pete.

Interestingly I just heard a poll discussing this. Biden leads with AAs in SC with 30%, but oddly Steyer is in second place with 24%. Perhaps that's something worth paying attention to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It's deliciously ironic that we were just discussing whether Sanders would be more, or as, likely as other candidates to claim victory upon the release of partial results, and the botched vote in Iowa assures us that whomever is in the lead upon the release of results will do precisely that.

To be fair, as far as I can tell the only one who didnt claim victory is Biden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Meh, who gives a shit about the "process."  Pick a nominee and move on.  That's how they used to do it before they let us plebeians vote on the nominees.  The smoke-filled backrooms didn't entail a recurring schedule.  If no one gets 50+1 percent, which yes likely would happen many times, you do it like a "top-two" or jungle primary system.  Have a run-off, maybe doesn't have to be top-two, establish a threshold.  And go from there.

You have to have some process that makes it appear more transparent. I don't think having a few more votes would be all that much of a hassle, and even you agree you'd need to have multiple votes on many occasions anyways. 

I do like the jungle primary idea though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

You have to have some process that makes it appear more transparent.

Not sure how one election for all 50 states, DC, whatever on a single day makes anything less transparent.  Just conceptually, the primary schedule is pretty damn orthogonal to transparency.  Anyway, yeah, in a lot of cases you'd probably need a few more votes to narrow it down.  Don't want someone with 24% getting the nomination on the first vote.  Guess that'd cost quite a bit more, which may be a problem.  Cost less if we all just did vote-by-mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for Buttigieg claiming victory without any results - why the hell not?  That's the perfect time for any politician to claim some type of victory -- when there's no actual evidence to contradict them.  And, at least so far, doesn't seem like it was much of a stretch, so won't hurt him.  Pretty much every candidate capitalized on the ability to hyperbolize more so with no results last night, expectedly.

Obviously I have nothing but disdain for Pete, I think I have made that clear, but there is a real critique of him being disingenuous and frankly I'd be worry about him getting hit on that if I were a Pete supporter.

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Interestingly I just heard a poll discussing this. Biden leads with AAs in SC with 30%, but oddly Steyer is in second place with 24%. Perhaps that's something worth paying attention to.

I've seen that poll too, but I think that Steyer is not viable in the long run. He doesn't have the backing of the rightwing (what a lot of folks are prone to calling the moderates) of the Democratic Party that someone like Bloomberg has, and Warren and Bernie have the left wing of the party on lockdown. Steyer does not actually have a real defined voting block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

Obviously I have nothing but disdain for Pete, I think I have made that clear, but there is a real critique of him being disingenuous and frankly I'd be worry about him getting hit on that if I were a Pete supporter.

I highly doubt Pete's "win" here means he's gonna get the nomination.  He's Santorum or Huckabee.  Went all-in on Iowa, and great it worked, made a name for himself.  What he does with that from now on is great for him - he's very employable now.  That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not sure how one election for all 50 states, DC, whatever on a single day makes anything less transparent.  Just conceptually, the primary schedule is pretty damn orthogonal to transparency.  Anyway, yeah, in a lot of cases you'd probably need a few more votes to narrow it down.  Don't want someone with 24% getting the nomination on the first vote.  Guess that'd cost quite a bit more, which may be a problem.  Cost less if we all just did vote-by-mail.

Idk, just feels like it would give campaigns more room to complain if there's just one vote. I know that doesn't matter to you, but there are a lot of voters who will react negatively if it feels rigged. Having multiple votes in a condensed timeline should help alleviate those concerns. 

And I agree, voting by mail should already be a thing. Think about it like welfare for the post office much like we enact policies that can largely be described as police welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk, just feels like it would give campaigns more room to complain if there's just one vote. I know that doesn't matter to you, but there are a lot of voters who will react negatively if it feels rigged.

Disagree..vehemently.  That's right, bringing out the big adverbs.  The problem with the current schedule is the radically disproportionate influence of white people with IA and NH as the first two contests.  How do you fix that?  Sure, you could do it piecemeal, regional, whatever, many different ways.  But again, if we're talking ideally, just negate all those possible differences in influence by having everyone vote at the same time.  It's a very simple solution to what should be a very simple problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meanwhile, Trumps enemy list keeps getting longer.  With acquittal absolutely assured, will Trump feel 'untouchable' enough to do something really stupid - like (almost) arbitrarily arresting his political enemies?  After all, there's nobody left to tell him its a bad idea anymore....

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-reportedly-hoping-lock-john-041020861.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=2_15

resident Trump's list of foes is getting longer by the day, with Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, and Nervous Nancy needing to make room for World War 6 John.

Vanity Fair's Gabriel Sherman reports that he has spoken to several Republicans who say Trump is keeping track of people he believes "crossed him during the impeachment," and has an "enemies list that is growing by the day." It's nonpartisan, with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), and former National Security Adviser John Bolton all making the cut.

Multiple Republicans told Sherman that Bolton is at the top of the list

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree with shrinking the process, but just having one day could have unintended consequences. A front runner could win without much of a contest, and inversely I can easily see this leading to a contested convention. Perhaps it would be better to have four to six primary dates based on regions, with like two weeks separating them.

This is exactly where I have settled after thinking about how primaries should look. I'd also add in a rotating schedule so that no single region goes first or last every time. Also cut down the fucking campaign season. There is no reason it needs to be two years long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Interestingly I just heard a poll discussing this. Biden leads with AAs in SC with 30%, but oddly Steyer is in second place with 24%. Perhaps that's something worth paying attention to.

If its the same Post and Courier poll, if I recall correctly their numbers were not that high for Biden to begin with, but his lead has probably slipped there (other polls put him at +30 in the past, but P&C only had him at +10-20 or so)

Also, Steyer got an endorsement from the Black Woman's Caucus in SC. Not sure if that endorsement matters, but Biden's AA support is soft. He has no real connection with them apart from being Obama's VP and name recognition (just as Hillary, but his seems softer than even that). I think he just doesnt have the energy to go out there and schmooze for endorsements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Trump goes after his political enemies. I mean, I don't really, but what will it take for the Rs to say "wow, that's fucked up."

So I was planning on caucusing last night, but due to some stupid time-management on my part I was running late and wouldn't have made the cut-off. Chalk up another reason to dislike the caucus system. They were planning on having a virtual caucus, but scrapped that due to concerns about something, so it could have been even worse than it actually was!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people think Buttigieg did anything wrong by declaring victory before the official numbers came out.  By all indications, Buttigieg had one of the largest and most organized ground operations in Iowa (along with Warrren), which meant that he very likely had at least one person attending most of the caucus sites, which means that he knew the results of most of the caucus sites on Monday night.  Unlike the Iowa democratic party, his team is able to handle basic arithmetic, so he could have easily calculated the vote totals and delegate totals for the majority of the sites.  If anything, assuming the numbers hold for Buttigieg, he was robbed of being officially named the winner of Iowa on Monday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah that's right, I'm rolling in the dough thanks to this choice of career path.  Gonna make it rain with my monthly stipend bitches!!!

Yell at the media, not at me, OK?  They report, I report.  There ya go. And you're tryin' right? and hopin', right?  That's the deal, right?  As it's been presented to us at least since Carville, right? :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Yell at the media, not at me, OK?  They report, I report.

They report what exactly?  That political scientists have a financial motive/incentive?  That's what I was commenting on (in a smartass way).  Cuz that depiction is soooo inaccurate, and personally just makes me laugh.  You know how much more money I could make tomorrow not being a political scientist if I decided that as opposed to continue trying to be a political scientist?  I don't really know what you're rambling about with Carville, but I'm gonna respond when you mention that bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...