|
new CNN/ORC poll Clinton-Sanders-Biden, 47-29-14. Second choice: 26-16-37. Clinton beats most republicans by about ten points in a head-to-head.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
greatn posted:Which anime though. Bernie prefers American-made anime, so Avatar: The Last Airbender.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Donald Trump is just gonna take his deposit. Look at this moron, paying me money to protest against me on my own property. Anyone else wanna join him? I'll gladly take your money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
MrBims posted:Bernie prefers American-made anime, so Avatar: The Last Airbender. That was already made real and all the POC characters from the animated series were played by white actors, so it's certainly credible that Sanders did have a hand in making it
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
fronz posted:new CNN/ORC poll to clarify, (amongst registered voters): Bush -9, Trump -6, Walker -6, Fiorina -10. (all americans) Bush -12, Trump -9, Walker -8, Fiornia -15.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:The only person who didn't get an invite was Gilmore. I don't know where Pataki and Graham broke 1%, but I guess they did. The only person on national polls, you mean? There are a bunch of other no hopers out there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I'm not saying she's not a liberal or that liberals don't vote for wars. Again, you described her as a model liberal, claiming there was no way in which she wasn't. She voted like most liberals have over the years, buddy. Sorry this makes you mad? funtax posted:O'Malley has been actively fighting for service workers (particularly hotel employees) for years. This is right in his personal wheelhouse (in addition to being better PR than yet another "impromptu" acoustic guitar sing along). He has? That seems like an odd cause to take up in Maryland of all places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He has? That seems like an odd cause to take up in Maryland of all places. Yup. When I was in college in Baltimore in the mid-90s, a significant push began to unionize hotel and hospital employees. I'm not sure how much he cared prior to taking office, but when O'Malley became mayor in '99, he really got behind our efforts and helped things actually get done. He extended it when he became Governor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
fronz posted:new CNN/ORC poll I wouldn't mind if Biden was VP again. I dunno if he would though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
funtax posted:Yup. When I was in college in Baltimore in the mid-90s, a significant push began to unionize hotel and hospital employees. I'm not sure how much he cared prior to taking office, but when O'Malley became mayor in '99, he really got behind our efforts and helped things actually get done. He extended it when he became Governor. Huh. Well good on him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I wouldn't mind if Biden was VP again. I dunno if he would though. The Secret Service would have to let him drive again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I wouldn't mind if Biden was VP again. I dunno if he would though. Hillary/Sanders (with the comedic stylings of Bill) against Trump/Biden, also featuring Walker/Cruz as some guys from the GOP?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
MrBims posted:So the kids table might have to turn a few people away. With that criteria and a MOE of 3-5%, prove that I am not polling at one percent. I demand to be in the debate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:With that criteria and a MOE of 3-5%, prove that I am not polling at one percent. I demand to be in the debate. Sorry but with the background of being British royalty with probably Spanish family automatically disqualifies you. However, if you were DrAdolf...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Hillary should just pick Bill as her VP, the collective aneurysms and subsequent mass die-off of millions of republican voters would have them coasting to victory. Then, in a 5-4 decision the supreme court rules that you can have a former 2 termer as your VP. Scalia, Thomas and Alito's heads explode and she makes three appointments. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:She voted like most liberals have over the years, buddy. Sorry this makes you mad? Let's just drop it, though, leave it at "you misused a term" and replace it with "run of the mill liberal" in our memories. SirPablo posted:With that criteria and a MOE of 3-5%, prove that I am not polling at one percent. I demand to be in the debate. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Hillary should just pick Bill as her VP, the collective aneurysms and subsequent mass die-off of millions of republican voters would have them coasting to victory. Then, in a 5-4 decision the supreme court rules that you can have a former 2 termer as your VP. Scalia, Thomas and Alito's heads explode and she makes three appointments. Her first nominee? Obama.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Words mean things. A "model liberal" is not the same thing as "run of the mill liberal". Yes it is. Outliers are not the model, my pal. GlyphGryph posted:
Buddy you're the one who doesn't understand what words mean here. Next you're going to tell me Corbyn is a liberal. HappyHippo posted:Hillary should just pick Bill as her VP, the collective aneurysms and subsequent mass die-off of millions of republican voters would have them coasting to victory. Then, in a 5-4 decision the supreme court rules that you can have a former 2 termer as your VP. Scalia, Thomas and Alito's heads explode and she makes three appointments. No, she needs to run with Al Gore, and then appoint Bill and Obama to the supreme court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes it is. Outliers are not the model, my pal. Words mean what people want them to mean, unless you're literally a child.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Serious question: All fun aside, it's pretty clear we'll have a Democratic president in 2016 without some catastrophe. So the real question is if the current GOP clusterjerk is going to affect down-ticket races. The way I figure: whenever Trump promotes bigotry without bothering to dog whistle, he risks alienating moderate/conservative women with his crude and unconcealed sexism, and strongly motivates hispanic voters to turn out for the Democrats. If/when the GOP establishment picks their candidate, their guy will be met with muted enthusiasm and maybe reduced turnout from a base that sees him as a RINO and a sellout compared to Trump. If Trump actually runs third-party, it's possible a percent of his supporters won't bother to vote (R) on down-ticket races. And finally, in the inconceivable attempt Trump gets the nomination, he'll mobilize the conservative fringe for him and the entire Democratic coalition against him, while polarizing moderates. So will Trump's candidacy, for better or for worse, meaningfully affect congressional and state elections? Or are we guaranteed eight more years of stalemate with a Dem president and a GOP congress?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Words mean what people want them to mean, unless you're literally a child. Words mean generally agreed upon things, not just what you want them to mean. That's the point of having words. Some words are more vague than others but the goal is for you to use them to communicate something to another human being. Redefining poo poo arbitrarily because that's your personal definition or whatever just makes communication impossible though perhaps that is the goal here. Trump Twitter posted:My official #MakeAmericaGreatAgain hat is now available online. To shop please visit http://www.donaldjtrump.com/shop -- it is selling fast! I want to know how many of those hats he is selling. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Indie Rocktopus posted:Serious question: All fun aside, it's pretty clear we'll have a Democratic president in 2016 without some catastrophe. So the real question is if the current GOP clusterjerk is going to affect down-ticket races. My guess at this point is that GOP ticket means that moderates/minorities run out from the party, and 3rd party ticket means that crazies run out. If Donald goes all the way to the general as anyone's candidate, he will hurt GOP. In any follow-up scenario, some group would have bad experiences from going with the party line. Only way to not damage the party would be that Donald bows out gracefully.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
I guess the question is, whose definition of model are we using here? I figure D&D would have a very different definition of "model" liberal than MSNBC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
There's also a new PPP poll of NC. I don't have a link, but it's on their website. In a Hillary-Trump-Nutz election, some of Hillary's supporters defect to Deez Nuts, leading to a Trump victory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Just catching up so I'm a few pages late, but the New Republic (in its brand-new, non-fascist iteration) has assembled an ongoing project regarding paid family leave. It's become their signature domestic issue and used it as a cover story about a month back. Here is the collection in its entirety. I can speak for the following essays, and there are others I haven't gotten to: Rebecca Traister blends personal anecdotes with a solid summary of existing statistics and regulations related to family leave. She is one of the few members of Franklin Foer's editorial staff who remained after the December shakeup, partially because Chris Hughes announced a generous leave policy - this gives the article a valuable personal perspective. Lauren Sandler on the case for Paid Leave and specifically its prospects as a liberal legislative priority on the stump for 2016. Liz Bruenig making GBS threads on Carly Fiorina for her reactionary views on leave.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
fronz posted:There's also a new PPP poll of NC. I don't have a link, but it's on their website. In a Hillary-Trump-Nutz election, some of Hillary's supporters defect to Deez Nuts, leading to a Trump victory. link is here choice bits: quote:Last month when we polled North Carolina and found Donald Trump leading the Republican field, it was the first poll by anyone anywhere to find Trump out ahead. He was at 16%. Our newest survey of the state finds that Trump's momentum has just continued to grow. He's now at 24% to 14% for Ben Carson, 13% for Jeb Bush, 10% for Ted Cruz, 9% for Marco Rubio, and 6% each for Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker. Those folks make for a pretty clean top 8 in the state. Rounding out the field are Rand Paul at 3%, Chris Christie and Rick Santorum at 2%, John Kasich and Rick Perry at 1%, Jim Gilmore, Bobby Jindal, and George Pataki with less than 1%, and Lindsey Graham with literally no supporters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Indie Rocktopus posted:Serious question: All fun aside, it's pretty clear we'll have a Democratic president in 2016 without some catastrophe. So the real question is if the current GOP clusterjerk is going to affect down-ticket races. Nobody is actually paying attention, Trump isn't going to be the nominee, and his saying crazy poo poo will be amusing but totally irrelevant. The house maps are so hilariously gerrymandered that the Democrats have no hope of taking the House back until well into the next decade. its plausible, though unlikely, that the Senate switches hands though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, she needs to run with Al Gore, and then appoint Bill and Obama to the supreme court. I would pay large sums of money to see Obama sitting there right next to Scalia, a permanent poo poo-eating grin etched on his face. All japes aside, who are Hillary's potential VP picks? One of the Castro brothers and a bunch of old white guys of little note?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Deez Nuts is heating up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Indie Rocktopus posted:Serious question: All fun aside, it's pretty clear we'll have a Democratic president in 2016 without some catastrophe. This isn't even close to true. The reason we have so many Republicans running this time around has a lot to do with the fact that this is a very attractive race for them to run in - arguably, the most attractive race since 1980. There's no presumptive Republican frontrunner based on strong performance in the previous cycle and/or being VP. Approval for the outgoing administration is stagnant, which historically impacts the administration's party negatively. Obama's approval is stuck in the mid-40s, there's no incumbent running, Hillary's approve/disapprove numbers are terrible, we have no idea how well Bernie will perform outside of a bubble of adoring fringe supporters. Yes, there are some demographic factors that benefit the Democrats on paper, but people are putting WAAAY too much stock in the electoral map's distribution of "firewall" and swing states mirroring the alignment from 2008 and 2012. Those were special elections that attracted special coalitions of Democratic voters that are unlikely to turn out in the same way this time around. It is WAY too early to make any reasonable declarations about what we expect the 2016 Democratic coalition to look like. Right now, generic ballots basically show the race to be a 50/50 toss up and it's likely to stay that way for quite a while. Simply put, whoever winds up as the Republican nominee will have a great shot at winning and they all know that. quote:So will Trump's candidacy, for better or for worse, meaningfully affect congressional and state elections? No. Because he won't be the nominee and even if he DID run third party, people who vote for him for President will vote for Republicans down-ticket. quote:Or are we guaranteed eight more years of stalemate with a Dem president and a GOP congress? Always bet on gridlock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Low effort troll and thought better of it.
Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:Deez Nuts is heating up. Better not heat up too much, swamp crotch is a hell of a thing to get stuck in
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Zelder posted:I guess the question is, whose definition of model are we using here? I figure D&D would have a very different definition of "model" liberal than MSNBC. In the sense of the very model of a modern major-general. Wolfsheim posted:I would pay large sums of money to see Obama sitting there right next to Scalia, a permanent poo poo-eating grin etched on his face. The only problem is that she can't appoint him to the Supreme Court until at least a second term because Michelle wants time away from DC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
quote:Finally another declared independent candidate, Deez Nuts, polls at 9% in North Carolina to go along with his 8% in Minnesota and 7% in Iowa in our recent polling. Trump leads Clinton 40/38 when he's in the mix.  This loving election...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
funtax posted:This isn't even close to true. The reason we have so many Republicans running this time around has a lot to do with the fact that this is a very attractive race for them to run in - arguably, the most attractive race since 1980. There's no presumptive Republican frontrunner based on strong performance in the previous cycle and/or being VP. Approval for the outgoing administration is stagnant, which historically impacts the administration's party negatively. Quoting for truth. I'd also add that the GOP is most likely going to have a significant cash advantage in the general election, due to superPACs. Anybody expecting this to be an easy election for the Dems is going to be in for a rude awakening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Quoting for truth. I'd also add that the GOP is most likely going to have a significant cash advantage in the general election, due to superPACs. Not all money is equal, though. SuperPAC spending translates into results much more poorly than campaign spending because it doesn't benefit from preferred ad rates and can't (officially) coordinate with the campaign. Also it tends to get siphoned off by inflated salaries in a lot of cases. Ask any finance person: they'd much rather have a million in the campaign coffers than a million in SuperPAC spending. Now, is the balance 1:2, 1:4, 1:1.1? I'm not sure anyone knows the answer there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
I've got to be honest, if a pollster called me and listed Deez Nuts as a candidate, I'd be compelled to answer that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
funtax posted:
Oh good this old argument is back from 2012. "The last election was clearly a one-time fluke surge of the Obama coalition."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:I've got to be honest, if a pollster called me and listed Deez Nuts as a candidate, I'd be compelled to answer that. Deez Nuts stimulation package is based in firm reality
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:13
|
|
