Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

I worry too much. Update: I’m feeling a lot better!

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Dems shouldn’t waste any time trying to win over “independents” like UncleZen who think Trump and Hillary are equals. 

Excellent strategy.  Ignore your own warts and beliitle independents who see the flaws in Democrats.  Obviously it is impossibke for a brilliant and honest women like Hillary to have any flaws.  I would run her again.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Absurd.  

How many international crooks and hundreds of millions  of dollars did Hillary"s foundation take money from in their hope to buy influence from Hillary?  You really think any of these crooks gave a crap about global warming or malaria in Africa?  

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 1:14 PM, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Completely disagree with you about impeachment here.  I don't care how it polls.  I don't care if it costs the Dems votes.  Every sane American should be screaming from the rooftops that we are in the midst of a national emergency for as long as Trump remains President. 

Joe should be much more concerned with deranged posts like this (and the 17 people who liked it) than any who's hottest poll. 

It is this sort of lunacy and hate that leads people to drive to DC and attempt to assassinate GOP members at a baseball game. 

The echo chamber here is not healthy. I sincerely hope we do not read about you on the news as your house of cards conspiracy theories come crumbling down.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Leroy Hoard said:

One of the best posts in this entire thread.

If you ignore the emoluments violations, admitted obstruction of justice and attacks on the legitimate functioning of the Justice Dept., all which are worse than anything past presidents have been impeached for, including Nixon, then yeah, it's a fantastic post. 

The smoking gun(s) are right in front of you and your're not seeing them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NFL2DF said:

Joe should be much more concerned with deranged posts like this (and the 17 people who liked it) than any who's hottest poll. 

It is this sort of lunacy and hate that leads people to drive to DC and attempt to assassinate GOP members at a baseball game. 

The echo chamber here is not healthy. I sincerely hope we do not read about you on the news as your house of cards conspiracy theories come crumbling down.

I know we're supposed to avoid personal attacks these days but the Never-Never-Trumpers, especially in here, could use a few articulate and thoughtful guys like fatguy on their side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Dems shouldn’t waste any time trying to win over “independents” like UncleZen who think Trump and Hillary are equals. 

I've met a lot of people in my life who suck. None of them suck equally... but they all still suck. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jon_mx said:

How many international crooks and hundreds of millions  of dollars did Hillary"s foundation take money from in their hope to buy influence from Hillary?  You really think any of these crooks gave a crap about global warming or malaria in Africa?  

Because you know, a huge Foundation is the same as them personally benefiting financially.  Kind of like Trump's doing with his actual business. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NFL2DF said:

Joe should be much more concerned with deranged posts like this (and the 17 people who liked it) than any who's hottest poll. 

It is this sort of lunacy and hate that leads people to drive to DC and attempt to assassinate GOP members at a baseball game. 

The echo chamber here is not healthy. I sincerely hope we do not read about you on the news as your house of cards conspiracy theories come crumbling down.

I am awfully even keeled and respectful of all sides of debates here. I try to avoid name calling and partisan politics, but I do think as long as Trump is President, we as a country have a problem. I think it is very clear that Trump is a poor leader and a poor repersentative for America. All the conspiracy theories may not be true, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump is not fit for the office and is a national embarrassment.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

Because you know, a huge Foundation is the same as them personally benefiting financially.  Kind of like Trump's doing with his actual business. 

I understand the difference on the surface, but if you dig down a layer you can start to see it is not much different.  The foundation serves as an avenue for the Clinton's to dole out huge amounts of money to their friends.   The Clinton foundation is a strange bird when it comes to charities.   They really don't provide goods and services to the poor.  They generally serve as a conduit for other charities.  And coincidentally often times those who benefit from offering not so effective services to these countries in dire need tend to be friends of Bill. 

The relief effort in Haiti was a prime example.   A ton of money flooded into Haiti and it really did not much good.  The Clinton's took a significant role in Haiti and part of the ineffectiveness was the Clinton's using US contractor's to do work instead of locals.  The travel costs and expenses of hiring outsiders ballooned costs by many many times more expensive.   Also the Clinton's secured huge financial insentives to build an industrial park which was supposed to support a hundred thousand jobs.  Instead it is just endee up a sweat shop which created a few thousand low paying jobs.   There are a lot of Haitians who hate the Clinton's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sabertooth said:

So the Republicans entire platform was to bash Obama, and they own everything.  But it won't work the other way around?  WHy not? 

Bashing Obama's policies.  

I think D's should bash away at Trump on his tax plan, healthcare failure, and immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Dems shouldn’t waste any time trying to win over “independents” like UncleZen who think Trump and Hillary are equals. 

They shouldn't waste any time on the progressives either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Excellent strategy.  Ignore your own warts and beliitle independents who see the flaws in Democrats.  Obviously it is impossibke for a brilliant and honest women like Hillary to have any flaws.  I would run her again.  

This is such a weird response. 

He said that Dems shouldn't waste time with people who think Hillary and Trump aren't equals. Then you respond with, "Yea, like Hillary doesn't have any flaws."

That's not what he said. How can there be any legit debate if we can't even be honest about what the other person is saying? 

You aren't the only one who does this. I get that. Its just frustrating when its such an obvious example. And then like 5 people "like" your post - a post that is blatantly mistreating the post its responding to.

Edited by whoknew
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I've met a lot of people in my life who suck. None of them suck equally... but they all still suck. 

I suck because I happen to think Hillary has skeletons in her closet too? Awesome! The funny thing is a lot of you can't understand why others don't want to visit the PSF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UncleZen said:

I suck because I happen to think Hillary has skeletons in her closet too? Awesome! The funny thing is a lot of you can't understand why others don't want to visit the PSF.

Again - that's not what Gunz said. He's not saying Hillary doesn't have any skeletons or doesn't have any flaws. He's saying (implying) Trump's are way, way worse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UncleZen said:

I suck because I happen to think Hillary has skeletons in her closet too? Awesome! The funny thing is a lot of you can't understand why others don't want to visit the PSF.

I refused to vote for Hillary. I also refused to vote for Trump. I was going to vote for Johnson, but he turned nutjob late in the campaign, and I ended up voting for no one.

I would have voted for Bernie without hesitation though. So if some liberals think I'm a waste of time trying to win over, then once again they'll fail to nominate someone I'd vote for. 

Edited by Politician Spock
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy - If you didn't vote for vote Hillary because she obviously sucks less than Trump then we don't need to court your vote.

Zen / Bernie -  I'm not going to vote for anyone who sucks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whoknew said:

This is such a weird response. 

He said that Dems shouldn't waste time with people who think Hillary and Trump aren't equals. Then you respond with, "Yea, like Hillary doesn't have any flaws."

That's not what he said. How can there be any legit debate if we can't even be honest about what the other person is saying? 

You aren't the only one who does this. I get that. Its just frustrating when its such an obvious example. And then like 5 people "like" your post - a post that is blatantly mistreating the post its responding to.

The poster did not claim they were equally as bad, just that Hillary had as many skelatons.   They may not be as bad, but when it comes to quantity of skelatons, the Clinton's are unsurpassed.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The poster did not claim they were equally as bad, just that Hillary had as many skelatons.   They may not be as bad, but when it comes to quantity of skelatons, the Clinton's are unsurpassed.   

But then your response still doesn't make sense. Because you are still mis-attributing what he said. Why didn't you just say, "Hey - that's not what Zen said. He doesn't think they are equal - he just thinks Hillary also has skeletons." Otherwise, you are just arguing passed each other and nothing gets accomplished. You both think the other is a moron.

But whatever. I don't know why I care - I'll go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I understand the difference on the surface, but if you dig down a layer you can start to see it is not much different.  The foundation serves as an avenue for the Clinton's to dole out huge amounts of money to their friends.   The Clinton foundation is a strange bird when it comes to charities.   They really don't provide goods and services to the poor.  They generally serve as a conduit for other charities.  And coincidentally often times those who benefit from offering not so effective services to these countries in dire need tend to be friends of Bill. 

The relief effort in Haiti was a prime example.   A ton of money flooded into Haiti and it really did not much good.  The Clinton's took a significant role in Haiti and part of the ineffectiveness was the Clinton's using US contractor's to do work instead of locals.  The travel costs and expenses of hiring outsiders ballooned costs by many many times more expensive.   Also the Clinton's secured huge financial insentives to build an industrial park which was supposed to support a hundred thousand jobs.  Instead it is just endee up a sweat shop which created a few thousand low paying jobs.   There are a lot of Haitians who hate the Clinton's.  

You seem to be very well versed on the operations of the Clinton Foundation.  Share where you got your extensive knowledge if you don't mind.  Since I'm stuck with the MSM, all I've heard are good things about the foundation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I understand the difference on the surface, but if you dig down a layer you can start to see it is not much different.  The foundation serves as an avenue for the Clinton's to dole out huge amounts of money to their friends.   The Clinton foundation is a strange bird when it comes to charities.   They really don't provide goods and services to the poor.  They generally serve as a conduit for other charities.  And coincidentally often times those who benefit from offering not so effective services to these countries in dire need tend to be friends of Bill. 

The relief effort in Haiti was a prime example.   A ton of money flooded into Haiti and it really did not much good.  The Clinton's took a significant role in Haiti and part of the ineffectiveness was the Clinton's using US contractor's to do work instead of locals.  The travel costs and expenses of hiring outsiders ballooned costs by many many times more expensive.   Also the Clinton's secured huge financial insentives to build an industrial park which was supposed to support a hundred thousand jobs.  Instead it is just endee up a sweat shop which created a few thousand low paying jobs.   There are a lot of Haitians who hate the Clinton's.  

The Clinton Foundation raised $30M for the Haiti disaster, and every cent was spent on the ground - $0 went to overhead.  

How much did you donate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, whoknew said:

But then your response still doesn't make sense. Because you are still mis-attributing what he said. Why didn't you just say, "Hey - that's not what Zen said. He doesn't think they are equal - he just thinks Hillary also has skeletons." Otherwise, you are just arguing passed each other and nothing gets accomplished. You both think the other is a moron.

But whatever. I don't know why I care - I'll go away.

I thought I would ignore the mischaracterization and try to explain the point.   As I said during the primary, Bernie was the far better candidate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Again - that's not what Gunz said. He's not saying Hillary doesn't have any skeletons or doesn't have any flaws. He's saying (implying) Trump's are way, way worse.

Thank you.  The idea that I don't understand or recognize HRC's warts is mind boggling.  I supported her opponent in the 2008 Democractic primary because of some of those warts.  

But the suggestion that HRC warts even remotely resemble the historic level of corruption we are seeing on a daily basis from the Trump administration is just bananas. If you believe that, you're either not paying attention, or you're so biased that it's not worth wasting time trying to convince you otherwise.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, timschochet said:

Kind of agree but I do think most of his other points are correct: we DO need younger people than Pelosi; I have written this before. We DO need people willing to work across the aisle. And his opinion about both the Russian scandal and Stormy Daniels is probably representative of most of America at this point. 

Frankly, UncleZen's post is pretty close to where I'm at, as a fellow independent.  I don't agree that Clinton and Trump have the same amount of skeletons, and they're not "equal" in their terribleness, but that's neither here nor there. 

Pelosi and the old guard Democratic Party establishment are not doing the party any favors.  There are younger people dying (figuratively) for a political party that represents them.  It sure as #### isn't the current GOP.....but many younger people, myself included (I'm an "old millennial"), don't necessarily view the Democratic Party as that party either.  Personally, I loathe what the GOP has become in the Trump era, but there's virtually nothing about the Democratic Party that excites me to vote.  Yes, we all dislike Trump.  I'm not going to vote GOP.  But I need more than "Trump sucks" to get me excited to vote Democratic.

As far as Russia, I think it's most likely that there was some level of wrongdoing.  I am looking forward to Mueller's report, though I doubt the GOP establishment will do anything to Trump even if Mueller's findings are substantial (I have very little faith in any GOP leadership).  And I couldn't care less about the Stormy Daniels thing.  I'm not remotely interested in it.  We all knew Trump is garbage before the election, and I don't really care what he does in his sexual free time.  It's an international embarrassment, sure, but, well, American politics have kinda been an international embarrassment in general since November 2016.  I'd rather focus on the things Trump and the GOP are doing to undermine America rather than his Daniels affair (or the pee tape or whatever).  Just my two cents.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I refused to vote for Hillary. I also refused to vote for Trump. I was going to vote for Johnson, but he turned nutjob late in the campaign, and I ended up voting for no one.

I would have voted for Bernie without hesitation though. So if some liberals think I'm a waste of time trying to win over, then once again they'll fail to nominate someone I'd vote for. 

I don't believe this.  I'm fairly certain the GOP would have demonized Bernie throughout the summer the same way they've demonized HRC the past 25 years, and you'd have found a reason to not vote for him either.  Even if that demonization isn't really rooted in fact, just like the hatred for HRC is mostly a bunch of BS fear mongering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, James Daulton said:

You seem to be very well versed on the operations of the Clinton Foundation.  Share where you got your extensive knowledge if you don't mind.  Since I'm stuck with the MSM, all I've heard are good things about the foundation. 

There are plenty of critics of the foundation in the MSM.  There are obviously some who drool over the Clinton's, and if that is all you have heard you are actively seeking positive puff pieces.   Here is a small sample.  

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/11/what-the-clintons-did-to-haiti

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/hillary-clinton-cheryl-mills.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/haiti-factory-big-money-state-department-clintons-meet/story?id=42729714

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steve Tasker said:

Frankly, UncleZen's post is pretty close to where I'm at, as a fellow independent.  I don't agree that Clinton and Trump have the same amount of skeletons, and they're not "equal" in their terribleness, but that's neither here nor there. 

Pelosi and the old guard Democratic Party establishment are not doing the party any favors.  There are younger people dying (figuratively) for a political party that represents them.  It sure as #### isn't the current GOP.....but many younger people, myself included (I'm an "old millennial"), don't necessarily view the Democratic Party as that party either.  Personally, I loathe what the GOP has become in the Trump era, but there's virtually nothing about the Democratic Party that excites me to vote.  Yes, we all dislike Trump.  I'm not going to vote GOP.  But I need more than "Trump sucks" to get me excited to vote Democratic.

As far as Russia, I think it's most likely that there was some level of wrongdoing.  I am looking forward to Mueller's report, though I doubt the GOP establishment will do anything to Trump even if Mueller's findings are substantial (I have very little faith in any GOP leadership).  And I couldn't care less about the Stormy Daniels thing.  I'm not remotely interested in it.  We all knew Trump is garbage before the election, and I don't really care what he does in his sexual free time.  It's an international embarrassment, sure, but, well, American politics have kinda been an international embarrassment in general since November 2016.  I'd rather focus on the things Trump and the GOP are doing to undermine America rather than his Daniels affair (or the pee tape or whatever).  Just my two cents.

Which of Nancy Pelosi's policy positions do you find particularly objectionable as an independent?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

I don't believe this.  I'm fairly certain the GOP would have demonized Bernie throughout the summer the same way they've demonized HRC the past 25 years, and you'd have found a reason to not vote for him either.  Even if that demonization isn't really rooted in fact, just like the hatred for HRC is mostly a bunch of BS fear mongering. 

The GOP demonizing Hillary isn't why I wouldn't vote for her. I don't like her because I believe she lets popular opinion decide her beliefs and actions for her. If she has a mind of her own, she sold it out years ago.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

The Clinton Foundation raised $30M for the Haiti disaster, and every cent was spent on the ground - $0 went to overhead.  

How much did you donate? 

$1000.  Read this article and get back to me.  Haiti would have been far better off without their help.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Thank you.  The idea that I don't understand or recognize HRC's warts is mind boggling.  I supported her opponent in the 2008 Democractic primary because of some of those warts.  

But the suggestion that HRC warts even remotely resemble the historic level of corruption we are seeing on a daily basis from the Trump administration is just bananas. If you believe that, you're either not paying attention, or you're so biased that it's not worth wasting time trying to convince you otherwise.  

You're placing what we know today versus what we knew at election time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Which of Nancy Pelosi's policy positions do you find particularly objectionable as an independent?  

http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Nancy_Pelosi.htm

I disagree with much of her tax policy as detailed in this list.  I think healthcare needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure pure expansion of Obamacare is the right way to do it.  I'm not a "gun guy" but I suspect she and I wouldn't see eye-to-eye based on her votes here.  I'm not particularly a fan of most expansion of the military or military spending.  I don't necessarily agree that the government needs to be involved in certain labor laws.  All in all I see a lot of spending in here, but that's not just her, that's every politician.  :shrug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Bashing Obama's policies.  

I think D's should bash away at Trump on his tax plan, healthcare failure, and immigration.

Maybe you didn’t hear but they also bashed his heritage.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sabertooth said:

 

14 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Bashing Obama's policies.  

I think D's should bash away at Trump on his tax plan, healthcare failure, and immigration.

Maybe you didn’t hear but they also bashed his heritage.  

 

No, I didn't hear that in the 2016 or 2012 elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

I don't believe this.  I'm fairly certain the GOP would have demonized Bernie throughout the summer the same way they've demonized HRC the past 25 years, and you'd have found a reason to not vote for him either.  Even if that demonization isn't really rooted in fact, just like the hatred for HRC is mostly a bunch of BS fear mongering. 

This is my second response to this post...

I have to say, this response by you shows that you believe dems lose because of GOP demonization. 

In my opinion, GOP demonization is simply them preaching to the choir. Those that eat up the demonization weren't going to vote for a dem anyway. The swing voters are swing voters because they require more substance to their voting decision. If anything, demonization deters them from the side doing the demonization. 

Edited by Politician Spock
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

This is my second response to this post...

I have to say, this response by you shows that you believe dems lose because of GOP demonization. 

In my opinion, GOP demonization is simply them preaching to the choir. Those that eat up the demonization weren't going to vote for a dem anyway. The swing voters are swing voters because they require more substance to their voting decision. If anything, demonization deters them from the side doing the demonization. 

:goodposting: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lot of Bill O’Reilly independents out there.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joffer said:

lot of Bill O’Reilly independents out there.

Deaf independents, if Bass’ post is representative.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

The swing voters are swing voters because they require more substance to their voting decision. If anything, demonization deters them from the side doing the demonization. 

These are the people the Dems need to reach. I've said this many times and I still believe it holds the key to the midterms and 2020. Get back the voters who went Obama to Trump and you'll regain control of the government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested in hearing from our swing voters why name-calling by Dems bothers them more than the things the Trump administration is doing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, packersfan said:
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

The swing voters are swing voters because they require more substance to their voting decision. If anything, demonization deters them from the side doing the demonization. 

These are the people the Dems need to reach.

Statistically speaking these voters barey exist.

13 minutes ago, packersfan said:

I've said this many times and I still believe it holds the key to the midterms and 2020. Get back the voters who went Obama to Trump and you'll regain control of the government. 

"Substance" is not what caused these voters to flip.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm worried, too. I just spent nine months watching my team with the expectation that every game would end with them giving up the winning goal in the 96th minute (after three minutes of stoppage time had been declared). In other words, losing in the most painful way possible. I now expect Donald to win re-election in 2020 with an even lower percentage of the nation's popular vote than he got in '16. With the results of the major urban precincts in Ohio and North Carolina getting "lost."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

This is my second response to this post...

I have to say, this response by you shows that you believe dems lose because of GOP demonization. 

In my opinion, GOP demonization is simply them preaching to the choir. Those that eat up the demonization weren't going to vote for a dem anyway. The swing voters are swing voters because they require more substance to their voting decision. If anything, demonization deters them from the side doing the demonization. 

I disagree strongly with the popular narrative that "swing voters" are somehow more nuanced and require more substance than voters affiliated with either party.  That's what self identified "swing voters" and "independents" want you to believe, but the reality is they're just as partisan and biased as everyone else, and often less educated on the issues.  Hence their inability to support the platform of either party.  :shrug:

ETA:  I also think your view on demonization in politics is naive.  Negative ads dominate the airwaves for one reason and one reason only - they work. 

Edited by tommyGunZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steve Tasker said:

Frankly, UncleZen's post is pretty close to where I'm at, as a fellow independent.  I don't agree that Clinton and Trump have the same amount of skeletons, and they're not "equal" in their terribleness, but that's neither here nor there. 

Pelosi and the old guard Democratic Party establishment are not doing the party any favors.  There are younger people dying (figuratively) for a political party that represents them.  It sure as #### isn't the current GOP.....but many younger people, myself included (I'm an "old millennial"), don't necessarily view the Democratic Party as that party either.  Personally, I loathe what the GOP has become in the Trump era, but there's virtually nothing about the Democratic Party that excites me to vote.  Yes, we all dislike Trump.  I'm not going to vote GOP.  But I need more than "Trump sucks" to get me excited to vote Democratic.

As far as Russia, I think it's most likely that there was some level of wrongdoing.  I am looking forward to Mueller's report, though I doubt the GOP establishment will do anything to Trump even if Mueller's findings are substantial (I have very little faith in any GOP leadership).  And I couldn't care less about the Stormy Daniels thing.  I'm not remotely interested in it.  We all knew Trump is garbage before the election, and I don't really care what he does in his sexual free time.  It's an international embarrassment, sure, but, well, American politics have kinda been an international embarrassment in general since November 2016.  I'd rather focus on the things Trump and the GOP are doing to undermine America rather than his Daniels affair (or the pee tape or whatever).  Just my two cents.

For what it's worth, the actual Dem candidates have been doing exactly this in their actual campaigns.  There's been very little talk of Russia or Stormy Daniels by those people.  The focus has been on affordable health care, the tax bill, corruption, and income inequality, which all kind of go together.  I would guess they'll add the Epic Systems decision (and the obvious connection between that and Gorsuch's appointment) to the mix.  Most people who actually watch these races carefully would tell you this, and it's the reason Dems have been doing so well in state, local and special election races since 2016.

The narrative about how they're focusing too much on Trump is a national cable news narrative because that's what people at that level/people who watch cable news are talking about, and rightly so, but efforts at the grassroots level tell a different story.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Estimates vary but I've seen studies which have shown nearly 7 million to 9 million voters switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. Given how small Trump's margin of victory was, I'd say winning those voters back could prove important for the Democrats moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

For what it's worth, the actual Dem candidates have been doing exactly this in their actual campaigns.  There's been very little talk of Russia or Stormy Daniels by those people.  The focus has been on affordable health care, the tax bill, corruption, and income inequality, which all kind of go together.  I would guess they'll add the Epic Systems decision (and the obvious connection between that and Gorsuch's appointment) to the mix.  Most people who actually watch these races carefully would tell you this, and it's the reason Dems have been doing so well in state, local and special election races since 2016.

The narrative about how they're focusing too much on Trump is a national cable news narrative because that's what people at that level/people who watch cable news are talking about, and rightly so, but efforts at the grassroots level tell a different story.

 

 

They've actually run away from impeachment when you know damn well that would be the Republicans' biggest card if the roles were reversed. I think you can make a strong case the Democrats aren't focusing on Trump enough although there's absolutely a wealth of talking points the GOP has been gift-wrapping them that aren't tied in directly to Trump himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, packersfan said:

Estimates vary but I've seen studies which have shown nearly 7 million to 9 million voters switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. Given how small Trump's margin of victory was, I'd say winning those voters back could prove important for the Democrats moving forward.

My guess is that this was an enthusiasm gap more so than the same people switching votes. I think Trump got a lot of votes from people who normally stay home, and Clinton probably scared off a few Obama voters because she lacked his energy and campaign outreach (even though their actual politics are fairly similar).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

For what it's worth, the actual Dem candidates have been doing exactly this in their actual campaigns.  There's been very little talk of Russia or Stormy Daniels by those people.  The focus has been on affordable health care, the tax bill, corruption, and income inequality, which all kind of go together.  I would guess they'll add the Epic Systems decision (and the obvious connection between that and Gorsuch's appointment) to the mix.  Most people who actually watch these races carefully would tell you this, and it's the reason Dems have been doing so well in state, local and special election races since 2016.

The narrative about how they're focusing too much on Trump is a national cable news narrative because that's what people at that level/people who watch cable news are talking about, and rightly so, but efforts at the grassroots level tell a different story.

 

 

This is what I'm seeing and hearing, too. Maybe because there are an increased number of women candidates, maybe because it's simply the smart and right thing to do.

Most of the vituperation seems to occur on social media. We lefties are incorrigible there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

For what it's worth, the actual Dem candidates have been doing exactly this in their actual campaigns.  There's been very little talk of Russia or Stormy Daniels by those people.  The focus has been on affordable health care, the tax bill, corruption, and income inequality, which all kind of go together.  I would guess they'll add the Epic Systems decision (and the obvious connection between that and Gorsuch's appointment) to the mix.  Most people who actually watch these races carefully would tell you this, and it's the reason Dems have been doing so well in state, local and special election races since 2016.

The narrative about how they're focusing too much on Trump is a national cable news narrative because that's what people at that level/people who watch cable news are talking about, and rightly so, but efforts at the grassroots level tell a different story.

 

 

agree.  i've been paying more attention this year than ever before, and the special election campaigns have been very issue-centered for the Dems, not #nevertrump focused.  i also love the type of candidates that Ds are running this year.  young, lot of women, very diverse, veterans, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

I disagree strongly with the popular narrative that "swing voters" are somehow more nuanced and require more substance than voters affiliated with either party.  That's what self identified "swing voters" and "independents" want you to believe, but the reality is they're just as partisan and biased as everyone else, and often less educated on the issues.  Hence their inability to support the platform of either party.  :shrug:

ETA:  I also think your view on demonization in politics is naive.  Negative ads dominate the airwaves for one reason and one reason only - they work. 

I used to be a partisan voter. It was growing up and becoming more educated that turned me into a non-partisan voter. So maybe my opinion is based too much on my own experience, but in my opinion those who defend party platforms come across to me as being pretty closed minded. As for negative ads work, I think they work to rally the partisan voters to the polls. The number of voters in 2016 was so high because both sides hated the other side so much. But the election was a real turn off to those who disliked both candidates. Like me, a lof of swing voters just simply didn't vote at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

I used to be a partisan voter. It was growing up and becoming more educated that turned me into a non-partisan voter. So maybe my opinion is based too much on my own experience, but in my opinion those who defend party platforms come across to me as being pretty closed minded. As for negative ads work, I think they work to rally the partisan voters to the polls. The number of voters in 2016 was so high because both sides hated the other side so much. But the election was a real turn off to those who disliked both candidates. Like me, a lof of swing voters just simply didn't vote at all. 

In retrospect, do you regret not voting for HRC? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.