2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX - Page 67 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-17-2016, 10:43 AM   #991
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,407
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Enough. Ignore him if you can't help but insult him at every turn.
it seems a little messed up to me that it’s acceptable for “poster A” to actively wish death upon someone, but if someone calls “poster A” a jerk for doing so that’s over the line. #priorities

anyways, “poster A” doesn’t deserve any more of my attention. moving on.
__________________

__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 11:00 AM   #992
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,400
Local Time: 12:44 AM
My money's on Booker
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 11:08 AM   #993
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
My money's on Booker
what are your thoughts on that? say Warren vs. Booker...
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 12:44 PM   #994
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
My money's on Booker

Booker has a very outgoing likeable personality. Once saved a family from a house fire. So he's got that going for him.

African-American turnout will probably drop a couple points with Obama not on the ticket. Adding Booker could reenergize those numbers. In a close race the turnout could make the difference in swing states.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:33 PM   #995
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 12:44 AM
If Booker is the VP, he's automatically the nominee in 2024. Incumbency plus being black (one fourth of the primary vote) would make him a shoe-in. That's a massive set back for those on the far left as Booker has had no problem cozying up to Wall Street and is arguably to the right of most of the party.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:44 PM   #996
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:44 PM
why are you a racist?

#bookerslifematters
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:44 PM   #997
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post

Now, Trump has disapproval of 89% of latinos and 94% of African Americans.
The latter part doesn't really matter. Blacks voted for Obama like 91-9, so this would hardly be any different. The Latino factor is pretty discouraging for him though as he would conceivably do far worse than even Romney, but as I had mentioned before from a FiveThirtyEight post, Latinos and Asians don't really matter when it comes to the Electoral College. The former group is heavily concentrated in blue/red states and the latter in blue states. Neither has that much of a presence to really be the factor in moving a swing state more than they already have in the recent past.

Now, Latinos will play a factor in helping win states like Colorado and Florida, mind you, but their turnout and support of Clinton will probably be barely any different from what they did for Obama in 2012 in those states.

Honestly, Cory Booker is probably the pick that best helps Clinton with a given coalition because its effects would last years. Black women vote more than anybody else and now they'd have a big reason to continue turning out in droves since Booker would conceivably be President as late as January of 2033 (jesus). His pick not only keeps a sizable chunk of the Democratic electorate in the fold, but also means that Clinton's chosen successor will have almost no problem becoming the nominee eight years from now.

Again, it's frustrating because Booker is certainly not on the left of the party's spectrum and it would just be another case of name recognition/identity politics in the 2024 primaries, and lord knows some of those other Clinton VP picks are a huge step backwards for liberalism in this country.

A Warren selection would finally put this country in the direction that most of the party wants to head, but I really doubt Clinton wants to be disagreed with, overshadowed in the limelight and pull the party in a direction outside her comfort zone. She's not a risk taker.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:52 PM   #998
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
why are you a racist?

#bookerslifematters
I'm sure that will actually be levied about by Booker supporters eight years from now, many of them Clinton supporters in this very thread since they like to just go along with the party's selection. Honestly, there is no way he can remotely lose the primary barring some huge scandal:

1) Incumbency/experience...similar to Clinton 2008.

2) Black and great public speaker...similar to Obama 2008.

3) Shrinking white population over the next eight years.

Seriously, the guy would start with half the electorate locked up immediately (plus all the Superdelegates if they're still a thing). It'll be like 2000 when everybody just let Gore have it because they had no chance of beating him. Booker will face an insurgent liberal candidacy or two, but they'll fare far worse than Sanders (despite the country's leftward shift) since part of that coalition will just jump in Booker's corner given the incumbency factor, not to mention that Booker himself can continue to move his positions to the left if necessary over the next eight years.

People should seriously hope she picks Warren just to give us an open field and an actual choice in 2024. I mean, at least we've had 2 or 3 potential nominees the last few cycles, but we're now at the risk of having just 1. And nobody wants a party that just becomes tailored to fit one person...look what happened in 2000 with Gore and the lack of excitement that all caused.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:10 PM   #999
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 12:44 AM
We have a new progressive champion. And his name is Chris Murphy.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:32 PM   #1000
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
The latter part doesn't really matter. Blacks voted for Obama like 91-9, so this would hardly be any different. The Latino factor is pretty discouraging for him though as he would conceivably do far worse than even Romney, but as I had mentioned before from a FiveThirtyEight post, Latinos and Asians don't really matter when it comes to the Electoral College. The former group is heavily concentrated in blue/red states and the latter in blue states. Neither has that much of a presence to really be the factor in moving a swing state more than they already have in the recent past.

Now, Latinos will play a factor in helping win states like Colorado and Florida, mind you, but their turnout and support of Clinton will probably be barely any different from what they did for Obama in 2012 in those states.

Honestly, Cory Booker is probably the pick that best helps Clinton with a given coalition because its effects would last years. Black women vote more than anybody else and now they'd have a big reason to continue turning out in droves since Booker would conceivably be President as late as January of 2033 (jesus). His pick not only keeps a sizable chunk of the Democratic electorate in the fold, but also means that Clinton's chosen successor will have almost no problem becoming the nominee eight years from now.

Again, it's frustrating because Booker is certainly not on the left of the party's spectrum and it would just be another case of name recognition/identity politics in the 2024 primaries, and lord knows some of those other Clinton VP picks are a huge step backwards for liberalism in this country.

A Warren selection would finally put this country in the direction that most of the party wants to head, but I really doubt Clinton wants to be disagreed with, overshadowed in the limelight and pull the party in a direction outside her comfort zone. She's not a risk taker.
Yep, i think that right now, Clinton has some tough options to weigh.

What does she need most? I still argue that with the popularity of Sanders, and the amount of new progressive voters he created - She needs Warren to bring them into the fold. She does well with hispanics and AA's, and does ok with women. But needs the younger white women. And Warren could be a boost there as well.

While Booker is more middle of the road, and would boost AA turnout, I think that because Trump is the opponent, Clinton will get a good amount of moderate voters all on her own.

Does she play it safe and pick Brown or Kane thinking it will give her leverage in their swing states?

More interestingly is you bringing up the coming election years. Dems could have quite a line up. Booker, Castro, Warren, Jack Conway, Beau Biden, Kirstin Gilibrand, Gavin Newsom are all interesting plays.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:40 PM   #1001
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,568
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post

More interestingly is you bringing up the coming election years. Dems could have quite a line up. Booker, Castro, Warren, Jack Conway, Beau Biden, Kirstin Gilibrand, Gavin Newsom are all interesting plays.
ALL ESTABLISHMENT!!!! We need candidates who will never waver on their ideals.

I think the Dem Party looks pretty good going forward. I'd like to see some candidates with new ideas on foreign policy, but to be fair it's such a delicate, always moving/evolving subject.

I wouldn't see Warren as someone who would continue the Obama Drone program, but the rest would probably fall in line. I actually don't mind the drones. There are a lot of sensitive lines to be drawn with it (albeit it if you fall under "War On Terror", it fits), but in dealing with Terrorism, I'm not sure there's a better military strategy than drones and special forces.
__________________
BEAL is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:40 PM   #1002
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 12:44 AM
I mean, there will be a lot of people jonesin' to become President in 2024, but it doesn't mean any of them will come anywhere close to sniffing that nomination.

Castro for example has no shot at it unless Clinton scoops him up here in what everyone in the media has said would be a blatant play for the latino vote. If she doesn't, then he's not really a politician and doesn't have much of a shot at being the potential nominee eight years down the road.

Gavin Newsom's trajectory has clearly been to the Presidency, ever since 2003 when he accepted Republican money and agreed to bring a pointless waste of money train to Chinatown in order to narrowly defeat the Green candidate for mayor. Unfortunately, he got major cock-blocked by the Jerry Brown resurgence, but there's no chance he doesn't make a play for the Presidency in 2024. It will be six years into his inevitable time as Governor of America's largest state and it's the only window he has to not face an incumbent President.

At the end of the day, if Clinton's pick isn't old, they're going to be tough to beat for the nomination. Nearly impossible, even. The party apparatus is always going to line-up behind the former VP and so will most of the public.

There will kind of be a hilarious uniformity to the entire thing. You'll be served up the one potential Democratic nominee on a platter who will then inevitably win the general election in a landslide every four years thanks to the changing demographics of this country. Who needs to vote when we can just have the Presidents choose the next one for us?
__________________
BigMacPhisto is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:41 PM   #1003
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
The latter part doesn't really matter. Blacks voted for Obama like 91-9, so this would hardly be any different. The Latino factor is pretty discouraging for him though as he would conceivably do far worse than even Romney, but as I had mentioned before from a FiveThirtyEight post, Latinos and Asians don't really matter when it comes to the Electoral College. The former group is heavily concentrated in blue/red states and the latter in blue states. Neither has that much of a presence to really be the factor in moving a swing state more than they already have in the recent past.

Now, Latinos will play a factor in helping win states like Colorado and Florida, mind you, but their turnout and support of Clinton will probably be barely any different from what they did for Obama in 2012 in those states.
I think this year it will matter more. I believe that you can add Nevada and Arizona to the list of states that could very well be blue this time around.
The trends are showing that the share of hispanic voters is rising by about 4 points every election cycle. Add into that them being energized to vote against Trump, and there you have it.

Romney got about 25% of the hispanic vote. At this point, Trump will be lucky to hit 15...
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:44 PM   #1004
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
I actually don't mind the drones. There are a lot of sensitive lines to be drawn with it (albeit it if you fall under "War On Terror", it fits), but in dealing with Terrorism, I'm not sure there's a better military strategy than drones and special forces.
As a lawyer I understand on an intellectual level what the issue is with drones. But of all American foreign policy positions, this one bothers me the least to be honest.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:46 PM   #1005
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,400
Local Time: 12:44 AM
I only vote for who I'm told.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com