Jump to content

US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected


Rippounet

Recommended Posts

I'm starting to think that Biden and Warren both missed their chance by not running in 2016. Either of them could have walked away with the nomination, since it turned out Clinton was a paper tiger. Plus, Warren running in 2016 would have meant that Sanders doesn't run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton wasn't a 'paper tiger'. She beat an unexpectedly substantial opponent in Sanders, and won the popular vote nationwide. That's not to say that Warren in particular might not have done well against her if she'd run, but let's not get carried away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

Clinton wasn't a 'paper tiger'. She beat an unexpectedly substantial opponent in Sanders, and won the popular vote nationwide. That's not to say that Warren in particular might not have done well against her if she'd run, but let's not get carried away. 

Or, she barely squeaked by an outsider candidate with zero support among elected party officials (who also started out with almost zero name recognition), and lost the general election to the least popular major-party candidate in history. I shudder to think how Rubio-Clinton (or Kasich-Clinton, or Walker-Clinton...) election would have looked like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Or, she barely squeaked by an outsider candidate with zero support among elected party officials (who also started out with almost zero name recognition), and lost the general election to the least popular major-party candidate in history. I shudder to think how Rubio-Clinton (or Kasich-Clinton, or Walker-Clinton...) election would have looked like.

Sanders 'started out with almost zero name recognition'? Even I had heard of him, and I'm not from the US. 

There's a very good argument that Clinton would have done considerably better against a more 'regular' Republican opponent such as Rubio or Kasich. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, mormont said:

Sanders 'started out with almost zero name recognition'? Even I had heard of him, and I'm not from the US. 

There's a very good argument that Clinton would have done considerably better against a more 'regular' Republican opponent such as Rubio or Kasich. 

Here's a poll from April 2015, showing that 58% of Democrats had never heard of Sanders: https://www.people-press.org/2015/04/02/campaign-2016-modest-interest-high-stakes/most-democrats-see-a-good-chance-of-supporting-clinton-many-possible-rivals-are-not-well-known/

Another poll from March 2015 showed 24% name recognition (lowest in the presidential field) and zero net favorability: https://news.gallup.com/poll/181949/clinton-favorability-familiarity-bests-2016-contenders.aspx

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Here's a poll from April 2015, showing that 58% of Democrats had never heard of Sanders: https://www.people-press.org/2015/04/02/campaign-2016-modest-interest-high-stakes/most-democrats-see-a-good-chance-of-supporting-clinton-many-possible-rivals-are-not-well-known/

Another poll from March 2015 showed 24% name recognition (lowest in the presidential field) and zero net favorability: https://news.gallup.com/poll/181949/clinton-favorability-familiarity-bests-2016-contenders.aspx

So... 24% name recognition among all voters, and 42% among Democrats - not zero?

Since the second poll doesn't list O'Malley, and O'Malley has lower recognition in the first, I think it's technically arguable whether Sanders had the lowest in the field (and he does appear to be pretty much tied with Webb even in the second poll). But I get that he didn't have as high recognition as Warren, which definitely goes to the original point that perhaps that was her moment. 

Still, I think it's very exaggerated to describe Clinton as a 'paper tiger'. She was a substantial candidate. I said at the time and still feel that it would have been better for her to face more opposition in the primary, though. This time around, there's certainly been more of a competition, but the remaining field of candidates, well... it's been said by many that it's not inspiring, and I would agree. The same can be said of the field the Republicans put forward in 2016 - lots of candidates, few were any good. It's reasonable to say that if this is what modern primaries look like, it doesn't reflect well on the parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

If he keeps the lead, does Buttigieg somehow come out of this with more delegates than Sanders? Google shows them getting an equal number, but its sum of delegates does not add up to 41 so I don't know where the additional ones go.

Looks like Buttigieg and Sanders are gonna come out of this tied in terms of pledged delegates at 11.  In terms of "SDE's" Buttigieg only has a negligible 4 point lead right now, and all we're waiting on with results is from the "satellite" caucuses in the first (congressional) district.  Based on Bernie's advantage/performance in those contests, even the SDE's may end up being a tie.  But regardless, they're gonna translate to a tie in the pledged count.  

I agree with you that if you google "Iowa results" right now the AP source they're using has to be off.  The 11 each number sounds about right - Sanders and Buttigieg are both at about 26% of SDE's and 11 is ~ a quarter of the overall pledged delegates.  The additional ones will go first more to Warren than what it's saying on google right now, and then both Biden and Klobuchar will pick up the rest as well - whereas google/AP has them at zero at the moment.  I suspect the reason for this discrepancy is because the "at large" delegates have yet to be distributed - gotta wait for the results to be finalized before doing so. 

ETA:  Yeah, looking into it, the google results are only reporting the "district" level delegates, which are 27 - that conforms to the 27 they have between Buttigieg (11), Sanders (11), and Warren (5).  Then there are 9 "at large" delegates and 5 "PLEO" delegates for Iowa that add up the their total 41 pledged delegates.  Both of those are gonna be distributed proportionally.  I honestly forget if you need to hit the 15% threshold statewide in order to get those or not in Iowa - the rules vary by state - so maybe Klobuchar will get some or maybe she won't since she's at ~ 12% statewide.  Either way, you can do the math there and the pledged delegate results are gonna be about the same distribution as what you see right now - just with at least Biden going from zero to 2 or 3.

Anyway, all that shit is inside baseball and doesn't ultimately matter.  The importance of Iowa is momentum, which was curtailed with the fuck ups Monday night.  Even in a regular cycle, any possible pledged delegate difference between Buttigieg and Sanders is rather trivial - they would and should be described as co-winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Thinking on it though, a couple things come to mind.

Either:

Clinton was so absurdly unpopular that literally anyone running against her in Iowa could have gotten, like, 40% or so

or

Sanders somehow is barely squeaking by a mayor of a small town despite getting nearly 50% of the votes in 2016 which bodes ill for his overall popularity and his ability to convert others to his cause

Could be both too!

I think it shows just how weak a candidate Biden is. Buttigieg obviously capitalized on the Senator candidates being stuck in D.C., but Biden couldn't (Klobuchar should be pretty pissed because I'm sure she could have picked up some votes at Biden's expense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Sanders 'started out with almost zero name recognition'? Even I had heard of him, and I'm not from the US. 

There's a very good argument that Clinton would have done considerably better against a more 'regular' Republican opponent such as Rubio or Kasich. 

It is absolutely fair to say Sanders started with zero name recognition, and to those who did know him, it seemed like a joke. This frumpy guy with messy hair was running?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

Here's a poll from April 2015, showing that 58% of Democrats had never heard of Sanders: https://www.people-press.org/2015/04/02/campaign-2016-modest-interest-high-stakes/most-democrats-see-a-good-chance-of-supporting-clinton-many-possible-rivals-are-not-well-known/

Another poll from March 2015 showed 24% name recognition (lowest in the presidential field) and zero net favorability: https://news.gallup.com/poll/181949/clinton-favorability-familiarity-bests-2016-contenders.aspx

 

Here's a fun daily show clip dealing with Bernie first announcing in 2016.

Either way, I think Iowa is good for Bernie, and NH and Nevada are likely going to create huge momentum for him. What's after that? South Carolina? I predict he'll crush there, and by then, he'll have gone ahead and given all pragmatic moderates notice to stay home in November so they can craft their lies later about how they did hold their noses, and they just don't know how Trump got re-elected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DMC said:

Eh, according to Morning Consult, he's still +13, and just above majority - 51% approval.  That should be just fine for an incumbent.  In comparison, Tim Kaine is at +11 and 45%, and I have zero worries about him winning his next election.  West Virginia is different than Virginia, no doubt, but I wouldn't be scared, or even too concerned, by the numbers if I was Manchin.  Definitely not worth inviting the wrath of leadership and risking the money they can provide you.

The bolded leaves a lot to be discussed. West Virginia is the most bizarre state in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

Here's a fun daily show clip dealing with Bernie first announcing in 2016.

Either way, I think Iowa is good for Bernie, and NH and Nevada are likely going to create huge momentum for him. What's after that? South Carolina? I predict he'll crush there, and by then, he'll have gone ahead and given all pragmatic moderates notice to stay home in November so they can craft their lies later about how they did hold their noses, and they just don't know how Trump got re-elected. 

Actually, I think it would be kinda bad for Sanders if he sweeps NH, NV, and SC. Because if he did that, it proves that the other candidates are non-viable and gives Bloomberg his opportunity to unite everyone who doesn't want Sanders. Whereas if Sanders does well, but doesn't dominate, than some of the other candidates stick around, Bloomberg doesn't get his shot, and things stay divided. Sanders instead slowly racks up a delegate lead, much like Trump in 2016, and around April everyone realizes that there's no stopping him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

Here's a fun daily show clip dealing with Bernie first announcing in 2016.

Either way, I think Iowa is good for Bernie, and NH and Nevada are likely going to create huge momentum for him. What's after that? South Carolina? I predict he'll crush there, and by then, he'll have gone ahead and given all pragmatic moderates notice to stay home in November so they can craft their lies later about how they did hold their noses, and they just don't know how Trump got re-elected. 

Remember how people were predicting that there was no way sanders was going to be the nominee and it wasnt an issue that moderates wouldn't vote for him? Wonder who that was...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

West Virginia is the most bizarre state in the country.

But it's incredibly beautiful (if still a chore) to drive through!

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

Actually, I think it would be kinda bad for Sanders if he sweeps NH, NV, and SC. Because if he did that, it proves that the other candidates are non-viable and gives Bloomberg his opportunity to unite everyone who doesn't want Sanders.

This is a very good point, even if it does seem completely counter-intuitive.  Strategically, Sanders wants as many of his rivals (Biden, Warren, Buttigieg) to remain viable as long as possible in order to split up the "anti-Bernie" vote.  Once that gets consolidated by one candidate is when he's going to encounter trouble.  But if it remains spread out for awhile, Sanders has a very clear path to the nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is a very good point, even if it does seem completely counter-intuitive.  Strategically, Sanders wants as many of his rivals (Biden, Warren, Buttigieg) to remain viable as long as possible in order to split up the "anti-Bernie" vote.  Once that gets consolidated by one candidate is when he's going to encounter trouble.  But if it remains spread out for awhile, Sanders has a very clear path to the nomination.

I'm not so sure.  Voters love a winner, and if Sanders wins IA and NH and NV, enough voters will be swingin his way that the nomination is more or less sealed.  Yes, the more candidates in the moderate lane, the better for Sanders, but Warren dropping out would be a huge help to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

South Carolina? I predict he'll crush there, and by then, he'll have gone ahead and given all pragmatic moderates notice to stay home in November so they can craft their lies later about how they did hold their noses, and they just don't know how Trump got re-elected. 

Are you seriously planting the seeds to excuse Sanders defeat already?  If Sanders is the guy, he needs to get voters to vote for him.  If he can't do that, that's on him.  And if YOU don't think he can do it, then you should support someone else.  Blaming the voters is loser talk.  

I'm not trying to get personal, but something about this really hit a nerve for me.  I think it's because I really dislike both Biden and Sanders and think they're bad choices and STILL have resigned myself to not just voting for them, but actively volunteering for them this fall.  Because I know the stakes and I'm not making excuses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam Schiff, New York, Nancy Pelosi -- or perhaps in her case, just the entire legislative branch of the federal government, are the overt targets of retaliation, just since yesterday.  Bedbug immediately shouted his demand for removal of this tumultuous priest / Schiff; Global Entry is now denied to anyone from NY; and then this about Pelosi -- and maybe Congress -- it's weird:

Quote

Pence goes after Pelosi with strange threat: She'll be the last Speaker to sit in that chair (VIDEO)

https://www.sourcepolitics.com/pence-goes-after-pelosi-with-strange-threat-shell-be-the-last-speaker-to-sit-in-that-chair-video/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Fez said:

Actually, I think it would be kinda bad for Sanders if he sweeps NH, NV, and SC. Because if he did that, it proves that the other candidates are non-viable and gives Bloomberg his opportunity to unite everyone who doesn't want Sanders. Whereas if Sanders does well, but doesn't dominate, than some of the other candidates stick around, Bloomberg doesn't get his shot, and things stay divided. Sanders instead slowly racks up a delegate lead, much like Trump in 2016, and around April everyone realizes that there's no stopping him.

I'm not sure about that. Bloomberg is relying entirely on a Super Tuesday strategy, which, if Sanders sweeps the next three states, will be much more difficult to pull off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

But it's incredibly beautiful (if still a chore) to drive through!.

And when you have to stop and talk to the locals?

Have you ever been there after WVU lost a football game? Have you seen the burning couches in the streets? Have you? HAVE YOU??!?!?!

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...