sho nuff
Footballguy
Unless he is firing up an alias...jon won’t be around til October.Please don't turn on the jon_mx signal
Unless he is firing up an alias...jon won’t be around til October.Please don't turn on the jon_mx signal
I think it is more that the current GOP has crossed a line in supporting a wanna be despot. Decency and the rule of law are under attack, and there is really no modern precedent to relate to.timschochet said:The economy is doing great while Republicans are in charge. Yet it looks very much like, despite this, Republicans are going to lose.
This phenomenon has happened before, to both parties. So it makes me wonder if the rule, “It’s the economy, stupid” only applies when times are bad? Then it’s obviously the number one focus. But perhaps when things are good, the public focuses on other issues?
I don’t know; this is just speculation.
Those would qualify as other issues lolI think it is more that the current GOP has crossed a line in supporting a wanna be despot. Decency and the rule of law are under attack, and there is really no modern precedent to relate to.timschochet said:The economy is doing great while Republicans are in charge. Yet it looks very much like, despite this, Republicans are going to lose.
This phenomenon has happened before, to both parties. So it makes me wonder if the rule, “It’s the economy, stupid” only applies when times are bad? Then it’s obviously the number one focus. But perhaps when things are good, the public focuses on other issues?
I don’t know; this is just speculation.
You understand why people are pointing out the hypocrisy of campaigning on the strength of her genitalia, shaming women into voting for her because she's a woman, and then ####ting on the progressive lgbt female in favor of the corrupt insider who happens to be a white man, right?[scooter] said:
Hillary also campaigned on the strength of her many years of public service, arguing that such qualifications made her better than someone who had never had an elected or unelected position in government.You understand why people are pointing out the hypocrisy of campaigning on the strength of her genitalia, shaming women into voting for her because she's a woman, and then ####ting on the progressive lgbt female in favor of the corrupt insider who happens to be a white man, right?
That's not how hypocrisy works.You understand why people are pointing out the hypocrisy of campaigning on the strength of her genitalia, shaming women into voting for her because she's a woman, and then ####ting on the progressive lgbt female in favor of the corrupt insider who happens to be a white man, right?[scooter] said:
Cool, but you need to dig deeper, 500 is a starting point!Just sent another $100 Harley Rouda's way - let's get Dana Roehrbacher the heck out of congress.
Gotta pace myself, probably send another hundy his way in October.Cool, but you need to dig deeper, 500 is a starting point!
Economic performance is less correlated with electoral success in midterms than in presidential elections. Also it generally matters more about the direction rather than the absolute numbers (I've even heard that the single most important indicator is growth during Q2 of an election year.)timschochet said:The economy is doing great while Republicans are in charge. Yet it looks very much like, despite this, Republicans are going to lose.
This phenomenon has happened before, to both parties. So it makes me wonder if the rule, “It’s the economy, stupid” only applies when times are bad? Then it’s obviously the number one focus. But perhaps when things are good, the public focuses on other issues?
I don’t know; this is just speculation.
That's not how hypocrisy works.
Hypocrisy is when you falsely use one person's words (such as Hillary Clinton) to call another person (such as Madeline Albright) a "hypocrite".
If Madeline Albright had stated that women should use gender as the sole factor in their voting decisions, then you might have had a point.
But she didn't, so you don't.
Hypocrites!!!!11111juanBetween 20 and 40 new women are poised to enter the House come January 2019, shattering the previous record of 24 set in 1992's "Year of the Woman." And the impending surge is being driven entirely by Democrats, including insurgent progressives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, who defeated 20-year Democratic incumbents. The number of Republican women in the House, meanwhile, is poised to decline.
Who did the Dem establishment support in Tom Carper's (the Iraq War supporting wife beater) primary against Kerri Harris, Joe Crowley's primary against Ocasio-Cortez, and Andrew Cuomo's (laughably corrupt scumbag) primary against Cynthia Nixon? Who did Gillibrand, Clinton, Biden, and party chair Tom Perez endorse in those races? Go ahead. I'll sit here and wait.SacramentoBob said:Hypocrites!!!!11111juan
Right. This actually disproves your entire theory. The party DOESN'T blindly endorse candidates based on genitalia. Any attempt to push that talking point is a strawman.ren hoek said:
The party has no problem backing women and minorities so long as they're neoliberal corporate tools, because the party is owned by corporate donors. If it's a progressive or justice democrat sort, it's like they don't exist.
No, it affirms it. The theory isn't that they blindly endorse based on genitalia. The theory is that the DNC/DCCC party brass only engages in identity politics when it suits the transnational corps that own the party, in a very cynical way, and discards them when it doesn't.Right. This actually disproves your entire theory. The party DOESN'T blindly endorse candidates based on genitalia. Any attempt to push that talking point is a strawman.
Let's say all conservative politicians and voters disappeared one day, like a rapture or something. Do you think the DNC along with the Democratic, et al voters would exist as it does? Or do you think they'd change at all? If so how? TIANo, it affirms it. The theory isn't that they blindly endorse based on genitalia. The theory is that the DNC/DCCC party brass only engages in identity politics when it suits the transnational corps that own the party, in a very cynical way, and discards them when it doesn't.
So your concern is that identity politics, while important, are secondary to actual policy considerations for them.No, it affirms it. The theory isn't that they blindly endorse based on genitalia. The theory is that the DNC/DCCC party brass only engages in identity politics when it suits the transnational corps that own the party, in a very cynical way, and discards them when it doesn't.
I don't think the people running it would change anything. The party would probably split along some sort of Bernie/Hillary fissure.Let's say all conservative politicians and voters disappeared one day, like a rapture or something. Do you think the DNC along with the Democratic, et al voters would exist as it does? Or do you think they'd change at all? If so how? TIA
Yeah, I think the DNC as we know it would go away and most D representatives will be significantly more left. I guess this is where we differ and since this is fantasy there's no way to confirm it besides referencing speeches.I don't think the people running it would change anything. The party would probably split along some sort of Bernie/Hillary fissure.
If by "actual policy considerations" you mean subservience to huge corporations, yes. My concern is that identity politics are being used to position the Democratic party as "good guys" while, at its very best, it is about .2% less worse than the Republicans.So your concern is that identity politics, while important, are secondary to actual policy considerations for them.
I think the people who reflexively defend her every single time her name gets mentioned no matter how valid the criticism is are more pervasive than people who are critical of her in the first place.Matthias said:His concern/obsession is putting Hillary Clinton in a negative light.
Ok manMatthias said:Except she has virtually zero people who reflexively defend her and you're way too biased to know what valid criticism of her looks like.
Of course I'm biased. It's called, having an opinion. Not sure how many defenders she has, just feels ridiculously overrepresented on this board sometimes.Matthias said:
You're talking about someone who is widely and strongly despised. How big is this army of Hillary defenders in your mind?
I know. You don't think you're biased. You frequently come up short in seeing it in yourself
By who?Of course I'm biased. It's called, having an opinion. Not sure how many defenders she has, just feels ridiculously overrepresented on this board sometimes.
Did Cuomo send the mailer? I thought he didn't know about it until after it had already gone out from the NYDNC?Waleed Shahid @_waleedshahid 3h3 hours ago
The @nytimes officially condemns Cuomo and demands he apologize to @CynthiaNixon. “This is the lowest form of politics, and the most dangerous, exploiting the festering wounds and fears along ethnic and religious lines.”
“I didn’t know about the mailer,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference Sunday in Manhattan. “I haven’t seen the mailer.”
Shahid is Nixon's policy director quoting a NYT opinion piece.Waleed Shahid @_waleedshahid 3h3 hours ago
The @nytimes officially condemns Cuomo and demands he apologize to @CynthiaNixon. “This is the lowest form of politics, and the most dangerous, exploiting the festering wounds and fears along ethnic and religious lines.”
I know. Apparently it's the whole editorial board. They did manage to squeeze in a tortured paragraph about Cuomo deserving a third term somehow. Probably to save face on their embarrassing endorsement of him on the 4th.Shahid is Nixon's policy director quoting a NYT opinion piece.
That being said, Orthodox Judaism and the Yeshiva society should be questioned. It's as bad as Christian Fundamentalism or Jihadist Islam. Secular Jews in Israel have a problem with their Orthodox brethren.
The piece was written by the NYT's editorial board. Describing it as "official" is a disingenuous act of partisanship.Waleed Shahid @_waleedshahid 3h3 hours ago
The @nytimes officially condemns Cuomo and demands he apologize to @CynthiaNixon. “This is the lowest form of politics, and the most dangerous, exploiting the festering wounds and fears along ethnic and religious lines.”
Anything’s possible but it’s highly unlikely.The conventional wisdom for several months now has been that Republicans would lose the House but increase their hold on the Senate. Is it possible they could lose the Senate as well?
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/840/283/350.pngAnything’s possible but it’s highly unlikely.
Hey, nobody thought Trump had a chance. Anything is possible. We need to get a foreign adversary with lots of smart computer nerds on the Dems side.Anything’s possible but it’s highly unlikely.
I’d give it about 15-20% right nowThe conventional wisdom for several months now has been that Republicans would lose the House but increase their hold on the Senate. Is it possible they could lose the Senate as well?
If they could flip Cruz, I'd push that up to 33%. Still unlikely but more likely.I’d give it about 15-20% right now
2018 US Senate Election - Majority OutcomeSeems high. Hope you're right.
I have never been a better, can someone explain these dollar amounts to me?2018 US Senate Election - Majority Outcome
Republican Majority -$215 Democrat Majority +$450 No Overall Majority +$350
2018 US House of Representatives Election - Majority Outcome
Republican Majority +$150 Democrat Majority -$200 No Overall Majority +$2500
2018 US Senate Election Winner - Texas
Ted Cruz $-170 Beto O'Rourke +140
-170 means you would need to bet 170 to win 100. +140 means if you bet 100, you would win $140.I have never been a better, can someone explain these dollar amounts to me?
Texas has been so disappointing for Democrats in past elections. It's hard for me to believe that this will be reversed until it happens.It really is starting to look like Cruz/Beto is the key race. GOP PAC money is pouring into that race now.
I think it may have been discussed in the Beto thread but it’s a shame that he may lose. But I’m curious what people think he could do to stay relevant and potentially make a run in 2024/2028 - if he loses this I assume 2020 is a non-starter??It really is starting to look like Cruz/Beto is the key race. GOP PAC money is pouring into that race now.
If I was richer I’d throw 50k on GOP senate majority. Seems like free money.2018 US Senate Election - Majority Outcome
Republican Majority -$215 Democrat Majority +$450 No Overall Majority +$350
2018 US House of Representatives Election - Majority Outcome
Republican Majority +$150 Democrat Majority -$200 No Overall Majority +$2500
2018 US Senate Election Winner - Texas
Ted Cruz $-170 Beto O'Rourke +140
Why would 2020 be a non-starter? Look at Barack and Clinton before him.I think it may have been discussed in the Beto thread but it’s a shame that he may lose. But I’m curious what people think he could do to stay relevant and potentially make a run in 2024/2028 - if he loses this I assume 2020 is a non-starter??
He means if Beto loses.Why would 2020 be a non-starter? Look at Barack and Clinton before him.
Yeah I think a loss is a problem, he has a hard path even with a win.He means if Beto loses.Why would 2020 be a non-starter? Look at Barack and Clinton before him.
Not sure how to run for President when you can't win a Senate seat.I don’t think it would matter.