Jump to content
Patrick Bateman

2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don

Recommended Posts

On 9/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, Horn Dog said:

Just received this.

29C7CC16-1D38-429F-91B1-640E8FEB259F.jpeg

 

I got a good one yesterday (side note, I get spam texts to someone named Norma on the regular).  I've never even known a Norma personally I don't think.

Message:  Greetings, Norma!! This is James w/ TX GOP.  I'm voting Republican in Nov Help Keep Texas Red.  We sent U an absentee ballot application.  2 optout txt STOP.

First off, that's a shitty message.  No good reason to vote Rep except "Keep Texas Red."  Random capitalization, text shorthand never appropriate for professional work, and then missing spaces.  Just shitty.

My response covered none of that, however:

Response:  Wait a minute, I thought our President Mr. Trump said that voting by mail was bad?

Still waiting for a response....

On 9/12/2020 at 11:38 PM, pyrohornIII said:

I'm ordering a better motion activated light and a motion activate sprinkler.  Tinkering with the idea of feeding the sprinkler through a pressurized tank with blue dye in the water.   Or maybe find some venturi feed setup, like a hose end sprayer uses.  

 

We have had a skunk problem in our neighborhood, and I have discovered that they do have high powered water cannons that will spray on motion.  They are meant for skunks, but would probably work on assholes too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  The comeuppance?  They all pulled the cord on a suicide vest.  We've all got shrapnel and burns, including them.  That's the fucking frustrating thing -- it wasn't even targeted rage, it was a suicide vest.  Blow us ALL up, fuckers!

I think what I really mean by comeuppance is mostly directed at the Rs in government that have enabled this.  They must be punished.

That said, there needs to be a reason for the voters to not go down this path again.  I don't know what that is exactly, but I feel if we just try to make nice, they will feel like they can use that leverage again in the future.  In my world, you don't get to try and burn the country to the ground and not have any consequences other than losing your orange god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If cousin Moe couldn't parlay his truck driving skills into big bucks during a fracking boom, then well... cousin Moe has problems that no politician can address much less solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

Oh boy......

Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to fuck an angry raccoon.

Although a slow agonizing death from rabies would spare me the even worse misfortune of having to read more of your posts.

Outside observer here: you are the angry raccoon in this conversation. You're angry that Bozo doesn't 100% align with your way of thinking and are lashing out. You aren't addressing anything he is saying, but rather what you feel he means. It is most definitely painful to watch and I really wish you'd stop. 

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


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

Outside observer here: you are the angry raccoon in this conversation. You're angry that Bozo doesn't 100% align with your way of thinking and are lashing out. You aren't addressing anything he is saying, but rather what you feel he means. It is most definitely painful to watch and I really wish you'd stop. 

Thanks but no thanks for the feedback.

I do wonder though if you actually read his responses to me. He started off the bat quipping about it going over my head and me not reading his posts, nothing in my posts was petty like that until he repeatedly did it. 

And I'm not angry about anything, I couldn't care less what he personally believes.

This is a public forum and he's entitled to write his nonsense just as much as I am.  I think it's hilarious but also a giant waste of time (new surly motto?)

Edited by totallynotabuttpirate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

I mean, not a lawyer, but does this follow?

Quote

1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

If cousin Moe couldn't parlay his truck driving skills into big bucks during a fracking boom, then well... cousin Moe has problems that no politician can address much less solve.

ha, you tell cousin moe that. his fist is as big as my head.

i get your point, but it was more of a lamentation of the loss of a way of life that was far more comfortable. coal to be mined, coal to be hauled. coal was the very identity of that whole area and was where everyone worked in some capacity, joined the union, lived in the little pink houses for you and me. now the pink paint is peeling, the wood is rotting and here come these goddamned texas carpetbaggers. he made money, i'm sure, just not in the way he was used to making it.

to you and me, that might seem strange, but we didn't grow up in  coal country.

Share this post


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

And one more thing. You can't tease out race from class or race and class from economic concerns, or vice-versa.  Race and class are in the air we breath and the food we eat. The idea that older white rust belt voters flipped to trump because of racism and not class anxiety is right there with the idea that they voted for Trump because they are too stupid to know what's good for them: both shining examples of progressives being terrible at politics because they have the privilege of being insulated from the outcome either way. 

 

I'm overall staying out of the argument, but could I politely ask you sub 'liberals' for 'progressives' when you post things like this?  Thanks.

 

Share this post


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

Thanks but no thanks for the feedback.

I do wonder though if you actually read his responses to me. He started off the bat quipping about it going over my head and me not reading his posts, nothing in my posts was petty like that until he repeatedly did it. 

And I'm not angry about anything, I couldn't care less what he personally believes.

This is a public forum and he's entitled to write his nonsense just as much as I am.  I think it's hilarious but also a giant waste of time (new surly motto?)

I agree, your posts are nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

He started off the bat quipping about it going over my head and me not reading his posts, nothing in my posts was petty like that until he repeatedly did it. 

tenor.gif?itemid=13191729

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

ha, you tell cousin moe that. his fist is as big as my head.

i get your point, but it was more of a lamentation of the loss of a way of life that was far more comfortable. coal to be mined, coal to be hauled. coal was the very identity of that whole area and was where everyone worked in some capacity, joined the union, lived in the little pink houses for you and me. now the pink paint is peeling, the wood is rotting and here come these goddamned texas carpetbaggers. he made money, i'm sure, just not in the way he was used to making it.

to you and me, that might seem strange, but we didn't grow up in  coal country.

Yeah.....like I said, if I was president, I'd have been in front of all those coal miners looking for a well-paying job, and said "dudes....you're sad you don't have jobs that earned you $45k.  What if I told you there were jobs that earned $50k for the taking?  Your new coal-mining jobs are construction jobs in Houston, and Austin, and New Orleans.  Go get 'em!  In fact, I'm working with Congress on the "jobs resettlement act of 200whatever" - a one-time tax credit for people who have to make a temporary economic sacrifice to move in order to find work, for folks at certain income levels."  Or something like that.

2 minutes ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

You're being an angry raccoon.....

I'm thinking we should NOT look up "angry raccoon" on Urban Dictionary.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

 

I'm overall staying out of the argument, but could I politely ask you sub 'liberals' for 'progressives' when you post things like this?  Thanks.

 

denied!

Share this post


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

Here's a decent paper that deals with some of what I'm talking about:

More than a Rural Revolt: Landscapes of Despair and the 2016 Presidential Election

 

 

Thanks.  

After this election is over it will be interesting to look at voters who supported Clinton over Obama in 2008, Trump over Clinton in 2016, and no one or Biden in 2020. 

But that is for another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Hilarious in its brutality from G Elliot

 

 

 

Im out of free articles. Is it basically saying that his base is less racist than him these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Storm the Field said:

Everything I'm seeing out of MN/WI/MI tells me we're looking at basically 2012 again. Biden gets 51.5-53.5% in each of those 3 and wins by anywhere from 4 in WI to 8 in MI and MN.

Anyone not reading the tea leaves that way at the moment either 1) Has an agenda, 2) is a bed wetter or 3) has a case of the stupids.  


Seriously, those states are Dem states. WI has been working on turning for about 20 years without quite getting all the way there, except for 1 year where the Dems ran a candidate you would have designed in a lab to be as bad as possible for that state. Wisconsin went Cruz in the primary when the primary was basically already wrapped up, so it's not like Trump can claim he's beloved there.  I could see WI turning red the same way Ohio has maybe, possibly, if the Dem party continues to drift to the left- but Biden isn't a drift to the left, at all, and Trump isn't their brand of GOP politician.   

The angst on here over those three states is silly. PA is same same. 

Share this post


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

Im out of free articles. Is it basically saying that his base is less racist than him these days?

SOME MIGHT have thought that, as president, Donald Trump would abandon the racially divisive campaign strategy he adopted in 2016. If anything, he has pursued it even more tenaciously. In July Mr Trump called Black Lives Matter a “symbol of hate”. Days later, speaking at Mount Rushmore, he described efforts to remove Confederate monuments in the South—considered by many to be symbols of white supremacy—as “a merciless campaign to wipe out our history”. After the police shooting of Jacob Blake, an unarmed black man, sparked protests and riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Mr Trump warned that if he were not re-elected, America’s suburbs would be “overrun” with “looters” and low-income housing projects (and, by implication, the people who live there).

Similar rhetoric has helped Mr Trump win over less-educated white voters in the past. According to an analysis by The Economist of polling data from the University of California, Los Angeles and Democracy Fund, a charity, this group tends to be less tolerant of minorities (they are less likely to acknowledge the influence of slavery and discrimination on the economic fortunes of black families, for example). Such attitudes are highly predictive of voting behaviour. We estimate that among voters who ranked in the highest 25th percentile on questions about race—a group social scientists might call racially “resentful”—89% voted for Mr Trump in 2016. Among voters in the bottom quarter, just 5% plumped for the Republican candidate.

But Mr Trump has been losing ground with the demographic group long thought to be the most racist. According to the survey, dubbed “Nationscape”, which polled more than 300,000 voters between July 2019 and July 2020, the president’s vote margin among whites without university degrees has fallen by half since 2016, from 27 percentage points to just 13. This raises an uncomfortable question for the incumbent: given his current strategy of exploiting racial division, how can he be losing support among his most racially resentful voters?

There are at least two possible explanations. First, according to the Nationscape survey, Americans have become markedly less racially resentful over the past year (the average of scores of racial attitudes, calculated by The Economist, has fallen from 0.45 to 0.41, on a scale from 0 to 1). Data from the Pew Research Centre, a think-tank, show a similar downward trend in white racial animosity since 2016. This may have weakened one of Mr Trump’s chief selling points. Indeed, the Nationscape survey data show that the relationship between the degree of racial resentment and support for Mr Trump has changed little since 2016; if anything, it has become stronger. But as the number of highly resentful people has fallen, so has the president’s share of the vote.

Sexism offers another clue. The Nationscape poll also asked respondents about their views on women, such as whether women can think as logically as men. These responses were also predictive of support for Mr Trump in 2016, when he ran against Hillary Clinton. The data show that 71% of those in the top quarter on our measure of sexism voted for Mr Trump, compared with just 25% of those in the bottom quarter. Sexism appears to be playing less of a role this time around. Mr Trump’s support among the most sexist voters has fallen by four percentage points, whereas his support among the least sexist has not changed.

Mr Trump has a daunting task ahead of him. The Nationscape survey suggests that, although racial attitudes remain salient to many Americans, there are nevertheless fewer racially resentful voters this year than in 2016. Much of that decline came over the summer as protests against police brutality and broader racial injustice spread throughout the country, swaying both “woke” voters and non-college whites. A strategy predicated on firing up this group, rather than appealing to moderates in the centre, may prove difficult. Meanwhile Joe Biden, Mr Trump’s Democratic opponent, has managed to boost his support among more sexist voters who were reluctant to vote for Hillary Clinton.

20200919_WOC599.png

Edited by totallynotabuttpirate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think Wisconsin is trending towards Ohio, with Pa at the tipping point and Michigan not far behind. Unless the Democratic party radically changes their strategy towards working class economic concerns in the next four years the future of the coalition will need to run through Texas and the Southwest, with a southeastern beachhead in Ga and Florida as the new Pennsylvania. 

Yeah, that's my theory for how the GOP will ever be able to win a national election again- in a nutshell. I think it's also possible, as LL points out, that the GOP can be out of power for a generation if the Trump stink sticks. Think Gop controlling the white house from 68-92 minus a 4 year fluke with Carter after watergate.  

Share this post


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

Democrats should continue to dominate the urban and educated areas.  So if Philadelphia and Pittsburgh grow, the gradual migration of the working class whites to the GOP should be more than offset.  Same in MN (Minneapolis), MI (Detroit, although there’s risk there), and possibly OH (although as we’ve seen the urban areas haven’t been strong enough and may not be anytime soon).  I agree Wisconsin is at risk of becoming a safe red state by 2028, as Ohio is.  But I don’t think Michigan and PA will follow.  
 

Once Texas turns, its probably over for at least 12 years.  Anyone would be happy to trade Wisconsin for Texas.

I don’t know what to expect in Florida.  

You are presupposing that the Dems can hold onto the massive suburban gains they've made in Texas (and some other places) that I would argue have nothing to do with them but rather with Donald Trump's vileness.  I don't think it's necessarily policy that's driven any of this.  Suburban voters will always be open to the idea of lower taxes, strong military, social peace, no upheaval b/c suburban voters have it pretty good, and they aren't chaos agents looking to remake society, by and large.  

It could be that the Trump stink lasts. It could be that they become climate voters. But it's not dem policy (I don't think) driving Wilco and Fort Bend blue- it's Trump dumbfuckery. I suspect. If he disappears and is replaced by a Paul Ryan type nobody that isn't dyed in the wool blue is going to find him offensive- I don't think.


Of course - that guy loses some of the ugliness Trump brought in so what's the net effect?  I don't know. 


Bozo is smart. People should listen to him.  I don't think he's always right or anything, obviously, and we disagree on where we draw our conclusions, but I think his analysis of world view is pretty spot on with his midwest movement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Im out of free articles. Is it basically saying that his base is less racist than him these days?

It contends:

1)Racists are still for him but there are fewer of them.

2)Sexists aren't as strongly for him.  Imagine that...Trump doesn't do as well with sexists against Biden as he did against Clinton.

Share this post


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

Serious question. Can you blame them? 

I never said jobs. I said pain and humiliation. Reading is fundamental. 

Two things:
1) Democrats have done an astoundingly shitty job of maintaining the minimum wage, in part because it was easy to sacrifice for other priorities, so they have. 
2) This isn't about the minimum wage. Nobody aspires to the minimum wage and the people Democrats have lost weren't minimum wage workers.  That's also why the the middle class in this country is so despondent: they are seeing the people at the top take a larger and larger share of the productivity generated by the economy and Democrats answer is to raise the minimum wage a little maybe? Come on, man. 

Also, and I don't hear this talked about much but the Dems are doing this solidifying being the party of the Rich/winners in the new economy narrative that you are talking about, I think, is that there are a lot of new Billion dollar companies out there. And they don't make shit. They don't employ people. Nobody benefits from Facebook or twitter or google having billion dollar market caps and employing 12 people in the way that you used to have to build shit and employ people at pretty decent wages to be a billion dollar company.  And those guys in Silicon Valley are voting blue even if they talk libertarian.   People used to maybe begrudge their employer making shit loads of money, but as long as their livelihood was tied to that they realized a rising tide lifts all boats. Whose boat is lifted by Zuckerburg becoming a three comma guy (as a worker not a user).

Share this post


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

Also, and I don't hear this talked about much but the Dems are doing this solidifying being the party of the Rich/winners in the new economy narrative that you are talking about, I think, is that there are a lot of new Billion dollar companies out there. And they don't make shit. They don't employ people. Nobody benefits from Facebook or twitter or google having billion dollar market caps and employing 12 people in the way that you used to have to build shit and employ people at pretty decent wages to be a billion dollar company.  And those guys in Silicon Valley are voting blue even if they talk libertarian.   People used to maybe begrudge their employer making shit loads of money, but as long as their livelihood was tied to that they realized a rising tide lifts all boats. Whose boat is lifted by Zuckerburg becoming a three comma guy (as a worker not a user).

Facebook has almost 50,000 employees at an average salary of ~$122k. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Also, and I don't hear this talked about much but the Dems are doing this solidifying being the party of the Rich/winners in the new economy narrative that you are talking about, I think, is that there are a lot of new Billion dollar companies out there. And they don't make shit. They don't employ people. Nobody benefits from Facebook or twitter or google having billion dollar market caps and employing 12 people in the way that you used to have to build shit and employ people at pretty decent wages to be a billion dollar company.  And those guys in Silicon Valley are voting blue even if they talk libertarian.   People used to maybe begrudge their employer making shit loads of money, but as long as their livelihood was tied to that they realized a rising tide lifts all boats. Whose boat is lifted by Zuckerburg becoming a three comma guy (as a worker not a user).

How many people do you think these companies employ? 12, apparently?

Facebook: 45k 
Alphabet (Google): 119k
Amazon: 800k

I think you have a false concept of the jobs these companies create. And that doesn't even include tertiary marketing positions at any other company who utilizes their platforms. Come on man. By the way, good ole' American Industry like Ford (120k), GM (85K) and General Electric (200K) are right in the same neighborhoods. This is some stupid ass thinking, and I hate to break it to you, we're in a digital age. 

Edited by SydneyCarton

Share this post


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

Facebook has almost 50,000 employees at an average salary of ~$122k. 

Facebook was a bad example. It’s matured. I was doing that when I shouldn’t have been typing. My bad. I’m more taking about the pre revenue companies. 

Share this post


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

How many people do you think these companies employ? 12, apparently?

Facebook: 45k 
Alphabet (Google): 119k
Amazon: 800k

I think you have a false concept of the jobs these companies create. And that doesn't even include tertiary marketing positions at any other company who utilizes their platforms. Come on man. By the way, good ole' American Industry like Ford (12ok), GM (85K) and General Electric (200K) are right in the same neighborhoods. This is some stupid ass thinking, and I hate to break it to you, we're in a digital age. 

Also, GM declared bankruptcy and both Ford and GM have needed bailouts.

Share this post


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

How many people do you think these companies employ? 12, apparently?

Facebook: 45k 
Alphabet (Google): 119k
Amazon: 800k

I think you have a false concept of the jobs these companies create. And that doesn't even include tertiary marketing positions at any other company who utilizes their platforms. Come on man. By the way, good ole' American Industry like Ford (120k), GM (85K) and General Electric (200K) are right in the same neighborhoods. This is some stupid ass thinking, and I hate to break it to you, we're in a digital age. 

Like I said- shitty post by me with bad examples. But the market cap discussion isn’t wrong I don’t think. Those guys have just grown beyond that. And not everyone can code. But anyone can be a farmer. Cue Bloomberg gift. Or work a production line. 

Share this post


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

Facebook has almost 50,000 employees at an average salary of ~$122k. 

Yeah, and Google employs over 100,000 with a similarly high median salary. The idea that tech companies don't employ people just because they don't employ them in manufacturing jobs is laughable. 

Share this post


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

Facebook was a bad example. It’s matured. I was doing that when I shouldn’t have been typing. My bad. I’m more taking about the pre revenue companies. 

Pre-Revenue? Are you sure you don't mean "Non Profitable?" Because I'm not sure the word "revenue" means what you think it means.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give us an example of a company with a billion dollar market cap with about 12 folks working there? Is one Pied Piper?

Share this post


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

Like I said- shitty post by me with bad examples. But the market cap discussion isn’t wrong I don’t think. Those guys have just grown beyond that. And not everyone can code. But anyone can be a farmer. Cue Bloomberg gift. Or work a production line. 

I'm not sure you're showering yourself with any glory as you continue down this spiral. I don't know shit about being a production line worker, or being a farmer. Sure, I can probably learn. But they're not inherent skills everyone knows..sort of like coding. It can be taught to people with programs and education. You can make an argument it should be a primary skill we teach now in prisons. Or anywhere folks need skills for new jobs. But I'll be sure to tell my kiddo in a few years that no, not everyone can go to Code Ninjas but he can sure as fuck get in the backyard and farm instead of getting a job when he's old enough. 

And do you only fucking think "coders" work at massive companies? There's PR people, marketing people, sys ops, suppy chain managers, content creators...

Share this post


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

Like I said- shitty post by me with bad examples. But the market cap discussion isn’t wrong I don’t think. Those guys have just grown beyond that. And not everyone can code. But anyone can be a farmer. Cue Bloomberg gift. Or work a production line. 

Well, pretty much every premise in your post was wrong. I wouldn't be so confident in your conclusion.  

Share this post


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

Pre-Revenue? Are you sure you don't mean "Non Profitable?" Because I'm not sure the word "revenue" means what you think it means.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give us an example of a company with a billion dollar market cap with about 12 folks working there? Is one Pied Piper?

Was trying to post while I was on hold and other shot. Like I said- shitty post and examples. Let me have some time to think and flesh it out bc it’s an interesting line of thought BC has brought up and the winners and losers and what that means for our body politic is pretty fascinating. 
I wanted to explore that and fucked it up. 

Share this post


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

 And not everyone can code. But anyone can be a farmer.

Que? Farming is tough work ask @Al_4_ISU and I would imagine if you can be taught to be a farmer then you can be taught to code. Not every tech jobs requires advanced coding, btw.

Share this post


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

Well, pretty much every premise in your post was wrong. I wouldn't be so confident in your conclusion.  

Fair enough. Like I said shitty post. Sorry for that. Gimme some time and a chance for a redo. 

Share this post


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

Was trying to post while I was on hold and other shot. Like I said- shitty post and examples. Let me have some time to think and flesh it out bc it’s an interesting line of thought BC has brought up and the winners and losers and what that means for our body politic is pretty fascinating. 
I wanted to explore that and fucked it up. 

I mean, at this point I just want to know what you think a tech company looks like. Because from your posts it seems like it's one or two dozen people, a couple of desktops, and everyone taking turns lighting pyramids of money on fire after sliding down them like The Joker. 

Share this post


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

ha, you tell cousin moe that. his fist is as big as my head.

i get your point, but it was more of a lamentation of the loss of a way of life that was far more comfortable. coal to be mined, coal to be hauled. coal was the very identity of that whole area and was where everyone worked in some capacity, joined the union, lived in the little pink houses for you and me. now the pink paint is peeling, the wood is rotting and here come these goddamned texas carpetbaggers. he made money, i'm sure, just not in the way he was used to making it.

to you and me, that might seem strange, but we didn't grow up in  coal country.

I know I'm a broken record, but the Republican destruction of unions is the main reason for the erosion of the middle class. The destruction of unions is what is hurting the Democratic party in many states. It's one of the most destructive events for the upward movement of Americans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a direct correlation between union membership decline and middle class aggregate income decline. But hey, at least the billionaires are happy. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also those numbers of employees at those tech  companies, you can probably triple them to get a true number of people who have employment because of those companies when you take into account contractors and partner companies who do 100% of their work for those companies. For example, there are a ton of people that work for third party companies whose only client is Facebook. I know a couple of guys who were in those roles, they used to tell people they worked for Facebook because it sounded cooler at parties than "I work for Nondescript LLC". They worked for Facebook every minute of their day. They were Facebook employees in everything except name.

A lot of people don't really grasp how many people those companies employ, directly or indirectly.

That said, the Democrats absolutely have to find a way to avoid becoming perceived as the party of wealthy technocrats. It's a double-edged sword because candidates who understand the real world these days might be pigeonholed into that "technocrat" cliche, and trying to stay blue collar gives us 95 year old baby boomers who probably don't know how to attach a Word doc to an email.

Edited by BradInATX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BrazilHorn said:

My worry re: polls & Trump voters is that no one will admit they voted for him. It is like a deep dark secret they won't own up to.

I think Trump voters are nervous about the shit they will rightfully get for putting this dipshit into office and never will admit they will fucking do it again in the upcoming election.

Where do you see any evidence of shy Trump voters?  Everything I have seen is that Trump voters are they opposite of shy.  They're flamboyant in their deplorability. 

If anything, I think there is evidence of there being a shy Biden vote (particularly among working-class rural women).  

48 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

You are presupposing that the Dems can hold onto the massive suburban gains they've made in Texas (and some other places) that I would argue have nothing to do with them but rather with Donald Trump's vileness.  I don't think it's necessarily policy that's driven any of this.  Suburban voters will always be open to the idea of lower taxes, strong military, social peace, no upheaval b/c suburban voters have it pretty good, and they aren't chaos agents looking to remake society, by and large.  

It could be that the Trump stink lasts. It could be that they become climate voters. But it's not dem policy (I don't think) driving Wilco and Fort Bend blue- it's Trump dumbfuckery. I suspect. If he disappears and is replaced by a Paul Ryan type nobody that isn't dyed in the wool blue is going to find him offensive- I don't think.

And for that reason, Greg Abbott and the rest of the statewide elected Republicans need to be praying for a Biden victory.  If Trump were somehow to win, 2022 would be very bad for Texas Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Where do you see any evidence of shy Trump voters?  Everything I have seen is that Trump voters are they opposite of shy.  They're flamboyant in their deplorability. 

If anything, I think there is evidence of there being a shy Biden vote (particularly among working-class rural women).  

And for that reason, Greg Abbott and the rest of the statewide elected Republicans need to be praying for a Biden victory.  If Trump were somehow to win, 2022 would be very bad for Texas Republicans.

Absolutely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Where do you see any evidence of shy Trump voters?  Everything I have seen is that Trump voters are they opposite of shy.  They're flamboyant in their deplorability. 

If anything, I think there is evidence of there being a shy Biden vote (particularly among working-class rural women).  

And for that reason, Greg Abbott and the rest of the statewide elected Republicans need to be praying for a Biden victory.  If Trump were somehow to win, 2022 would be very bad for Texas Republicans.

I guess I’m going off signs in my neighborhood. 100% Biden. Admittedly I’m in Central Austin but It’s eerily reminiscent of last election. Only place I’ve seen Trump signs was at Horseshoe Bay. 

Share this post


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

I guess I’m going off signs in my neighborhood. 100% Biden. Admittedly I’m in Central Austin but It’s eerily reminiscent of last election. Only place I’ve seen Trump signs was at Horseshoe Bay. 

But the "shy Trump voter" theory isn't about yard signs.  It's about the accuracy of the polls.

Some people posit that the polls underestimate Trump's support because there are a bunch of shy Trump voters out there.  Specifically, there are people who are embarrassed to tell a pollster that s/he is voting for Trump.

There is literally no evidence for that.

But I am wondering whether there might be a shy Biden vote among (particularly) women who wouldn't want their spouse to hear that they're voting for Biden over Trump.  I don't have any evidence for that, either.  But I think that makes a lot more intuitive sense than the prospect of a bunch of Trump voters who just go unidentified by pollsters.

Share this post


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

I guess I’m going off signs in my neighborhood. 100% Biden. Admittedly I’m in Central Austin but It’s eerily reminiscent of last election. Only place I’ve seen Trump signs was at Horseshoe Bay. 

Didn't Austin vote for Clinton at nearly 80%? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...