Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/02 02:43:18
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Cruz is leading Trump by 4% with 40% reporting... that's surprising.
It's not even remotely surprising. Cruz has spent a mountain on Iowa, and while their both wind bags with nothing constructive to say, Cruz has (surprising the entire field) been less inflammatory than Trump.
The only thing that's surprising about it is that the party faithful went from one windbag with nothing constructive to say to another windbag with nothing constructive to say, with a third windbag with nothing constructive to say in thrid. Christie the only guy in the top end of the GOP field who I've seen offer anything substantial on policy (on top of being everything the GOP supposedly likes in a candidate) but he's gaining no traction. That's what's really surprising about the entire primary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/02 02:46:01
whembly wrote: Cruz is leading Trump by 4% with 40% reporting... that's surprising.
It's not even remotely surprising. Cruz has spent a mountain on Iowa, and while their both wind bags with nothing constructive to say, Cruz has (surprising the entire field) been less inflammatory than Trump.
meh... it's likely Cruz's GOTV strength is showing here.
Trump and Cruz got good enough results, without either of them getting great results. Rubio was the real winner on the Republican side. All three are now
Cruz won, but he kind of had to considering the Iowa demographics. Trump came in second, but with a quarter of the vote he showed his polling support would appear at the ballot. So both had okay nights, their chances haven't been harmed, but they haven't really been helped either.
Rubio was the real winner, a strong showing has now clearly separated him from the rest of the pack. He's well positioned to pick up the votes from Bush and the rest as they drop off now.
On the Democratic side, well Clinton continue to meh along, didn't she? She can't shake of Bernie, but he can't actually score an unqualified win. It's all just a long, drawn out meh.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Sebster, look at your own nation. A prime minister gets thrown out by political deals behind closed doors, and a bemused Australian public wonders if they're ever going to get a say on their new leader. And so it goes on.
Yes, such outrage we have. When Gillard replaced Rudd we showed our anger by... voting Gillard in again at the next election. And when Turnbull was replaced Abbott we showed our outrage by... giving Turnbull overwhelming preferred leader support, to the extent that Labor is panicking a bit that if these are the figures when we next go to election they could be facing a wipe out.
It turns out despite the histrionics, most Australians understand that we vote for local members, and the party with the most elected members chooses their leader, and can change that leader without going to a general election.
But by all means, continue to interpret everything with as negative a lens as possible. It's so much more exciting that way.
And yet, people query why some people are dissatisfied with politics!
There is a difference between dissatisfaction and nihilism. Dissatisfaction is natural - if there weren't things that left us dissatisfied us we wouldn't have politics at all. That's very different to declaring politics awful and all politicians equally terrible, which is what you were doing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/02 05:15:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/02 05:25:37
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
On the Democratic side, well Clinton continue to meh along, didn't she? She can't shake of Bernie, but he can't actually score an unqualified win. It's all just a long, drawn out meh.
The thing is, Bernie really needed a convincing win in Iowa to have any chance, because momentum is the only thing that could possibly get him the nom. It's his third best state demographically speaking - the other two being New Hampshire and obviously Vermont. He's polling well behind Hillary in any state where the Democratic primary isn't decided exclusively by well-off white far left liberals.
He's going to lose Iowa, easily win New Hampshire, and then absolutely crater.
2016/02/02 05:40:27
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
No matter how this goes in Iowa for either Clinton or Sanders, it will be seen in only one way.
This was a poor showing for Clinton. Her next stop is New Hampshire, Sander's backyard. She might get the win, but it won't be by much and not a very good one at that.
Even if the win goes to Clinton, this still looks great for Sanders. He wasn't even considered several months ago, but now he is a contending option.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/02 05:41:58
I'm back!
2016/02/02 05:50:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
On the Democratic side, well Clinton continue to meh along, didn't she? She can't shake of Bernie, but he can't actually score an unqualified win. It's all just a long, drawn out meh.
The thing is, Bernie really needed a convincing win in Iowa to have any chance, because momentum is the only thing that could possibly get him the nom. It's his third best state demographically speaking - the other two being New Hampshire and obviously Vermont. He's polling well behind Hillary in any state where the Democratic primary isn't decided exclusively by well-off white far left liberals.
He's going to lose Iowa, easily win New Hampshire, and then absolutely crater.
I disagree. This is huge for Bernie, win or lose. Right now everybody who has been saying "He has no chance" for months, are being proven wrong. All of the pessimistic people who said they were not going to vote because he has no chance, are being shown there is a chance.
Right now, Bernie is pulling it off.
2016/02/02 07:50:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadwinter wrote: I disagree. This is huge for Bernie, win or lose. Right now everybody who has been saying "He has no chance" for months, are being proven wrong. All of the pessimistic people who said they were not going to vote because he has no chance, are being shown there is a chance.
Right now, Bernie is pulling it off.
I hope you're right, as someone who will not be voting Democrat no matter what; I really want Republicans to get to run against Bernie in the primary.
But I don't think the demographics are lying. Bernie doesn't do well anywhere that actually has minorities, and Iowa doesn't mean much - both Huckabee and Santorum have won it, let's not forget.
2016/02/02 07:52:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It sounded like pretty huge turn outs for the Dems in my area as well. One report was over five hundred people in a gym with a four hundred person cap fire code for example.
2016/02/02 09:11:22
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ahtman wrote: When some Republicans are running let us know. Right now not sure what these things are, but they don't seem to be Republicans.
Alternatively, the sad truth is that Trump is what the republican party has fallen to.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/02/02 09:26:16
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yes, such outrage we have. When Gillard replaced Rudd we showed our anger by... voting Gillard in again at the next election. And when Turnbull was replaced Abbott we showed our outrage by... giving Turnbull overwhelming preferred leader support, to the extent that Labor is panicking a bit that if these are the figures when we next go to election they could be facing a wipe out.
It turns out despite the histrionics, most Australians understand that we vote for local members, and the party with the most elected members chooses their leader, and can change that leader without going to a general election.
I think that says more about Australia than it does my viewpoint! When you consider that Australia has mandatory voting, I don't think they're a good example of the democratic process. You on the other hand, will probably disagree.
I'm not a nihilist, just somebody who is depressed at lack of ideas and vision on offer.
Returning to the topic at hand, last night's Iowa vote is a prime example of what I mean.
Ted Cruz, who's whole campaign is based on vote for me because I'm not Donald Trump, won the Republican vote.
Hilary Clinton, who's campaign is based on vote for me because I'm a woman, wins the Democratic vote.
I can't be the only person astounded at the lack of political vision, of ideas for changing America, on offer?
This is the century in which America and its interests, faces huge changes around the globe. It's position as the undisputed global superpower will be challenged like never before, from you know who.
History shows us that sometimes it does not end well...
Who has the vision and the leadership to meet these challenges?
Cruz? Clinton?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/02/02 10:11:16
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ted Cruz, who's whole campaign is based on vote for me because I'm not Donald Trump, won the Republican vote.
To be fair, "I'm not Trump" is a pretty compelling argument.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/02/02 10:19:49
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ted Cruz, who's whole campaign is based on vote for me because I'm not Donald Trump, won the Republican vote.
To be fair, "I'm not Trump" is a pretty compelling argument.
Only as long as Trump is involved. Once he's gone, you're left with nothing.
Also, having to tell people that you are not Donald Trump isn't that great. You are still mentioning him and implying that there is some comparison there.
Also, remember this:
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/02/02 10:32:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Sure, but hopefully by then you've turned it into a lot of votes and can win with the rest of your arguments.
Also, having to tell people that you are not Donald Trump isn't that great. You are still mentioning him and implying that there is some comparison there.
That's the whole point! You want to mention Trump, because fear of Trump is a wonderful asset. He's an obviously terrible candidate and a pretty repulsive person in general. There are a lot of people who will vote for pretty much anyone besides Trump, and reminding those people that Trump is still out there lurking makes them get out and vote. But if Trump disappears or you don't scare people enough with him then those "anyone but Trump" voters return to their normal lack of enthusiasm and you lose those easy votes.
IOW, it's the classic "my opponent is the worst thing ever" scare tactic, but with the nice bonus that Trump is indisputably that terrible so you don't even have to lie to use it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/02/02 10:38:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
But if you have to actually tell people that you aren't Trump, rather than that being obvious then you are probably closer to Trump than people want and so they might go a different way to get further from Trump.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/02/02 11:05:29
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I know, I live far away from USA but we still have echoes of this political mess here. Of course, everything is focused on that person - but honestly, it's more treated like a bad joke than a real threat. He's lying so much without any shame than it's almost funny (in a sad way). Sounds like "experts" trying to give him a lot more credit than he's worth in reality. I wonder if Republican voters actually grasp the idea that if that Donald Duck (sorry for the pun ) is their main candidate, he will automatically lose to the Democrats.
It's still interesting to see how it works in your country - sounds even more complicated than our own elections, which is a lot to say for such a tiny piece of land that is Belgium. I wish you good luck for the rest!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/02 11:06:45
2016/02/02 11:12:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Sure, but hopefully by then you've turned it into a lot of votes and can win with the rest of your arguments.
Also, having to tell people that you are not Donald Trump isn't that great. You are still mentioning him and implying that there is some comparison there.
That's the whole point! You want to mention Trump, because fear of Trump is a wonderful asset. He's an obviously terrible candidate and a pretty repulsive person in general. There are a lot of people who will vote for pretty much anyone besides Trump, and reminding those people that Trump is still out there lurking makes them get out and vote. But if Trump disappears or you don't scare people enough with him then those "anyone but Trump" voters return to their normal lack of enthusiasm and you lose those easy votes.
IOW, it's the classic "my opponent is the worst thing ever" scare tactic, but with the nice bonus that Trump is indisputably that terrible so you don't even have to lie to use it.
But that the point I'm making - he has no arguments other than I'm not Trump.
If Cruz had came out and said I want to cut the deficit, balance the budget, and start a revolution to make the American education system the best in the world etc etc, that's an idea, that's a vision. I may not agree with it, but at least it's an argument for a presidential campaign.
Clinton is just as bad. Asking women to vote for Clinton because she's a woman, is a terrible idea for running a political campaign.
I'm old fashioned in the sense that I see believe that poltics can change the world for good, and that competing visions and ideologies need to be put before the electorate.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/02/02 11:17:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ted Cruz, who's whole campaign is based on vote for me because I'm not Donald Trump, won the Republican vote.
To be fair, "I'm not Trump" is a pretty compelling argument.
It can go the other way, too. "I'm not Ted Cruz" is good enough for me if i were forced to pick between the two.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
) is their main candidate, he will automatically lose to the Democrats.