Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

I don't know, you can't really predict that kind of thing. About the only one who seems least likely to win is Carson because of his incoherency when talking policy. Though that doesn't seem to hurt him, heck, I thought he might get a drop in popularity (especially rural Iowa) when he said he wanted to do away with all subsidies. Apparently not.

Trump is a wildcard of wildcards, while there is certainly plenty of material to attack him with, the fact that he has never held political office actually gives him an advantage in some ways when it comes to the general. I suppose with the right team, he COULD win. tl;dr YOU CAN'T PREDICT TRUMP.

I think what you're seeing is a Republican electorate so desperate that they're in "fuck everything we know" mode.
No experience? Great!
Terrible at compromise? Great!
Will piss off our allies? Great!

Honestly, if Trump came out and announced he wasn't actually human, he'd probably gain another 15 points, just because "Hey, we've never had a non-human President before, so he's bound to do better than what we've had!"

They'd be wrong, of course....how could we forget President Executron?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I welcome it. You can't extract change without the shakeup.

[sluissa]

Worked well enough with Stephen Byerley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(short_story)

[mainiac]

heck, I thought he might get a drop in popularity (especially rural Iowa) when he said he wanted to do away with all subsidies. Apparently not.

We are long since in a "post-policy" mode of political campaigning.  Even on the democratic side it's more about personality and perception then actual policy proposals.  On the republican side, the policies dont even make sense.

[mainiac]

If you want to exaggerate things to illogical extremes, yes.

[smjjames]

heck, I thought he might get a drop in popularity (especially rural Iowa) when he said he wanted to do away with all subsidies. Apparently not.

We are long since in a "post-policy" mode of political campaigning.  Even on the democratic side it's more about personality and perception then actual policy proposals.  On the republican side, the policies dont even make sense.

I thought it was more of a "pre-policy" mode, before policy starts to really matter, at least for winnowing down the candidates.

Of course though, the voters on the republican side don't seem to give a damn anyway.

@MSH: Speaking of change, Bush some time earlier had said 'America can't afford a presidential experiment.' and I was like 'but isn't every election an experiment?'

[mainiac]

I thought it was more of a "pre-policy" mode, before policy starts to really matter, at least for winnowing down the candidates.

"Post-policy" in the sense that in previous primaries, policy positions mattered but they do not anymore.  For instance in 2004 it was a big difference if the democratic nominee was pro or anti war.  In 2008 it mattered again as did the fact that Obama was against the individual mandate and Clinton was in favor.  This election both Bush and Clinton put out quite radical platforms and everyone called them centrists for it.

The democratic candidates seem to be adapting to these circumstances very well.  If Clinton is president then two years from now she can tell congress she doesn't care if they block bank regulation because she was elected on a platform of using executive action to regulate the banking sector.  Sanders has succeeded at shifting the definition of "mainstream" ideas way to the left without any blowback at all from the media.

[nenjin]

I thought it was more of a "pre-policy" mode, before policy starts to really matter, at least for winnowing down the candidates.

Sanders has succeeded at shifting the definition of "mainstream" ideas way to the left without any blowback at all from the media.

Well, consider our media. On the right Fox create blowback on anything that serves their agenda. The signal to shrill ratio for Fox has long been out of whack. Teasing apart cultural and political shifts isn't really their bag. And on the left CNN is like one headline or two overblown headlines away from becoming the liberal Fox. Essentially, it's the outcome the left media would want so, why not adopt ideas they agree with and treat them as mainstream?

I know that excludes CNBC, the papers and the like.

[Flying Dice]

Kentucky race is at 25.7% reporting, Bevin's leading by 4.2%. The night is still young, though. *fingers crossed*

[penguinofhonor]

58% reporting, Bevin is leading by 6.4%. Come on, Kentucky. Don't do this to me.

[Flying Dice]

They're starting to call it with Bevin leading by 8% with 85% of the votes in. RIP Kentucky, maybe our sacrifice will help show the way forward in the presidential race.

Beshear and Grimes are still showing slight leads, so it might not be a complete disaster yet, just 95% of one.

[smjjames]

Isn't Kentucky the one with the last democratic held statewide office in the deep south?

[Playergamer]

Good game, bevin wins.

[redwallzyl]

even the Senate is realizing how useless they are.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/03/454368957/freshman-senator-to-his-colleagues-the-people-despise-us-all

[penguinofhonor]

Hey. We are not the deep south, even if it's starting to look that way.