--> Jump to content

Do we have a McAullife vs. Younkin thread?


Gil Bang

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m sure they’re crushed. 

Shouldn’t you be spouting out some more insane bullshit in the taxes thread like the poor using their refund checks to reach the million dollar wealth goal by 40 you believe everyone should easily meet?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dems can’t compete the with R propaganda machines without having one of their own, they just don’t have one. They cannot compete with Fox News, newsmax and all the AM conservative radio shows.
The dems have npr to show some news, it boils down to 5 radio stations screaming about CRT and npr taking about a bird species in Idaho that one guy photographed.

They don’t talk about policies at local level and don’t energize the voter base. They do a bit on national level but get crushed in off years. 
it’s kind of like football recruiting, it’s a 24/7 game and not 1 month out the year.

 

IMO they need to have a charismatic person running for president like Clinton and Obama who know how to  get people energized.

if they run with Harris it will be a bloodbath, she couldn’t inspire who person who did a pound of coke in a rave.

 

Do focus groups of what to say to combat rs shit that will stick with the ppl and repeat it 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

The Dems can’t compete the with R propaganda machines without having one of their own, they just don’t have one. They cannot compete with Fox News, newsmax and all the AM conservative radio shows.
The dems have npr to show some news, it boils down to 5 radio stations screaming about CRT and npr taking about a bird species in Idaho that one guy photographed.

They don’t talk about policies at local level and don’t energize the voter base. They do a bit on national level but get crushed in off years. 
it’s kind of like football recruiting, it’s a 24/7 game and not 1 month out the year.

 

IMO they need to have a charismatic person running for president like Clinton and Obama who know how to  get people energized.

if they run with Harris it will be a bloodbath, she couldn’t inspire who person who did a pound of coke in a rave.

 

Do focus groups of what to say to combat rs shit that will stick with the ppl and repeat it 

We are fucked.

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We are fucked.

Pretty much, we are run by morons in the party.

start prepping Kelly from Arizona or Fetterman from Penn. they cannot get someone boring, I mean they will find the most boring person…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dens have been given a glimpse into the future and it shows a bloodbath in 2022 and 2024 election.  Not from a tyrannical Trump and rigged elections, but from Joe voter saying, “You do not represent me and my interests.” That’s just a reality the Dems are going to have to face and holy shit I hope they face it before Trump cruises to a 2nd term with a real, no-shit voter mandate and the Supreme Court, and both Houses of Congress behind him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's Biden or Harris.

Agreed, it will be Biden or Harris. 

I would vote for her in a heartbeat over any Republican, but we do not want Kamala Harris to ever be the nominee. She does not have the political instincts or skill to survive the onslaught from the GOP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The dens have been given a glimpse into the future and it shows a bloodbath in 2022 and 2024 election.  Not from a tyrannical Trump and rigged elections, but from Joe voter saying, “You do not represent me and my interests.” That’s just a reality the Dems are going to have to face and holy shit I hope they face it before Trump cruises to a 2nd term with a real, no-shit voter mandate and the Supreme Court, and both Houses of Congress behind him.


Trump is not getting a 2nd term.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh lord Penelope is really having some melt down issues .. 

 

reality kind of sucks, but saying Fuck you to anyone who disagrees  with you is the mark of a child with nothing but vitriol to fall back on. 

Mr. Biden is exactly the candidate that so many Democrats hate, an Old, white guy who’s sucked at the tit of govt for decades and enacted some of the very legislation that Democrats hate.

cue the fuck you emojis 

 

EDIT :  And right on cue Pen ol girl comes in with her brilliant response.  

Edited by Onboard 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Goredho said:

The dens have been given a glimpse into the future and it shows a bloodbath in 2022 and 2024 election.  Not from a tyrannical Trump and rigged elections, but from Joe voter saying, “You do not represent me and my interests.” That’s just a reality the Dems are going to have to face and holy shit I hope they face it before Trump cruises to a 2nd term with a real, no-shit voter mandate and the Supreme Court, and both Houses of Congress behind him.

Don't worry if you are Dem. It won't be a blood bath. The GOP is dumb enough to nominate Trump if his ego makes him run again (it will) or nominate someone else that comes across like either a prick/asshole (Ted Cruz type) or a clueless country club goober (Mitt Romney/Jeb Bush type) that has no ability to relate to people. It is known.  The Dems can drive this country off a cliff at 100 miles per hour and at most they will lose 3 Senate seats and 40 house seats in 2022, with a presidential race that is razor sharp in 2024 no matter how bad things are or how bad the Dem candidate. So you have that going for you, which is nice I suppose.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a lot of anger at the “Democrats” for selecting this guy to run and a desire to see a less boring/milquetoast nominee.

He did win a contested primary running away, with the nearest finisher being a young, progressive, Black woman from the house of delegates. So the question here is why voters in the Democratic primary didn’t go for that candidate and instead went for this guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Agreed, it will be Biden or Harris. 

I would vote for her in a heartbeat over any Republican, but we do not want Kamala Harris to ever be the nominee. She does not have the political instincts or skill to survive the onslaught from the GOP. 

Yea it will be that, Harris just has no charisma to energize anyone, she would put a high meth head to sleep.

yea will vote for her vice trump but dems need record turnout to win 

USA loves to see a show in election cycles, the more drama the better, boring loses     

Edited by Gengs1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gengs1 said:

Yea it will be that, Harris just has no charisma to energize anyone, she would put a high meth head to sleep.

yea will vote for her vice trump but dems need record turnout to win 

USA loves to see a show in election cycles, the more drama the better, boring loses     

Another problem with Harris is she’s pretty much just disappeared. There are no visible successes on her part that I can see. Maybe stuff behind the scenes but . . . ? I thought she was suppose to work on the border problem and instead it appears that problem is worse. I’m so disgusted with the Dems right now I’m thinking about going independent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There seems to be a lot of anger at the “Democrats” for selecting this guy to run and a desire to see a less boring/milquetoast nominee.

He did win a contested primary running away, with the nearest finisher being a young, progressive, Black woman from the house of delegates. So the question here is why voters in the Democratic primary didn’t go for that candidate and instead went for this guy. 

Because they’re fucking morons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Because they’re fucking morons?

Byzantine. 

https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2012/byzantium-and-islam/blog/cultural-connections/posts/byzantine

Spoiler

Safire explains that the negative connotations of "Byzantine" originated from "the court of the emperor—usually named Constantine—[which] was marked by rivalries, duplicity, and violence, giving the word a bad name today." He may have been inspired in his remark by a proliferation of anti-Byzantium sentiment in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. "[The Byzantine empire's] general aspect presents a disgusting picture of imbecility; wretched, nay insane, passions stifle the growth of all that is noble in thoughts, deeds, and persons," declared Hegel in Lectures on the Philosophy of History. Even Napoleon warned against following "the example of the Byzantine Empire, which, being pressed from all sides by the barbarians, became the laughing stock of posterity because it was preoccupied with petty quarrels."

While there was undoubtedly intrigue in the Byzantine court—and, as in any political system, a degree of bureaucracy—interpretations of Byzantium as a place full of bad actors who never got anything done probably reflect old East-West tensions more than anything else. Nonetheless, the negative connotation seems to have stuck, an example of the power of language. Meanwhile, in Byzantium and Islam, we are shown artifacts that convey the true legacy of Byzantium: magnificence, beauty, spirituality, and cultural exchange. In this, we see the power of art.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bravo said:

I'm dumber for watching her. She doesn't get it. It's not a messaging problem. It isn't we are doing these great things we just aren't getting the word out right problem. 

Well which would you rather believe- you are awesome and right about everything and people would love you if you could just figure out if to tell them how awesome you are, or people hate what you are doing and think you are wrong. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn’t this race just a continuance of what we saw in 20 where R’s performed quite well except at the top of the ticket or in races where he was a massive presence, like GA runoffs. The fact he tried to steer away from direct trump assistance says something as well.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluto said:

Wasn’t this race just a continuance of what we saw in 20 where R’s performed quite well except at the top of the ticket or in races where he was a massive presence, like GA runoffs. The fact he tried to steer away from direct trump assistance says something as well.

top of the ticket exceeded all projections but his own. by a lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Well which would you rather believe- you are awesome and right about everything and people would love you if you could just figure out if to tell them how awesome you are, or people hate what you are doing and think you are wrong. 

Exactly.  It’s the message, not the policy!  You sure sweetheart? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2021 at 11:17 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah- I don’t understand where @Panchois coming from there. 

What is "roots" are and what he currently is can be 2 different things.  

Once again, Van Jones isn't currently "far left" and it's not clear why you and others keep spouting this falsehood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bluto said:

Wasn’t this race just a continuance of what we saw in 20 where R’s performed quite well except at the top of the ticket or in races where he was a massive presence, like GA runoffs. The fact he tried to steer away from direct trump assistance says something as well.

I think this is fair. I saw 20 as a rejection of progressives and Trump. I was expecting a wipe out against the GOP but it clearly wasn’t and it was pretty clear that Trump was a drag/motivating/deeply unpopular. This reads sort of the same way as a loss for D’s and Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pancho said:

What is "roots" are and what he currently is can be 2 different things.  

Once again, Van Jones isn't currently "far left" and it's not clear why you and others keep spouting this falsehood. 

So the Obama green jobs guy that was a commie/socialist agitator and now sits as the furthest left mainstream guy on a left leaning channel isn’t actual left and shares my politics. Got it. 
also Me calling him the most honest lefty on tv was clearly not meant to disparage or a jab. You are going to have to give me some areas where he and I are politically aligned (since you made the claim) bc I barely watch anything on tv, listen to no punditry unless it’s background noise somewhere else outside of election night LULZ. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I was expecting a wipe out against the GOP but it clearly wasn’t and it was pretty clear that Trump was a drag/motivating/deeply unpopular. This reads sort of the same way as a loss for D’s and Trump. 

trump. almost. fucking. won.

whether he was up to shady shit or whether it was legit, it’s alarming and should not be dismissed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

trump. almost. fucking. won.

whether he was up to shady shit or whether it was legit, it’s alarming and should not be dismissed. 

I’m not dismissing it. But, incumbents usually win. Especially when the economy is going just fine (like it was pre-Covid) and his Trumpness is what did him in, even if just barely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

So the Obama green jobs guy that was a commie/socialist agitator and now sits as the furthest left mainstream guy on a left leaning channel isn’t actual left and shares my politics. Got it. 
also Me calling him the most honest lefty on tv was clearly not meant to disparage or a jab. You are going to have to give me some areas where he and I are politically aligned (since you made the claim) bc I barely watch anything on tv, listen to no punditry unless it’s background noise somewhere else outside of election night LULZ. 

In the Democrat party he’s becoming main stream so I get where they say he’s not hard left leaning. That is just a lie though.  It’s a “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” kind of lie.

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

But, incumbents usually win. 

4 of the last 7 by my count, but sure.  usually can mean a variety of things.  the polls had his approval at historical lows for 4 years, he got impeached twice, and he was polled to lose huge.  he lost, but he overperformed. 

if your takeaway is that he underperformed, that's inaccurate.  if your take is that he was a drag on the gop side, that's also inaccurate, because they largely overperformed as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

4 of the last 7 by my count, but sure.  usually can mean a variety of things.  the polls had his approval at historical lows for 4 years, he got impeached twice, and he was polled to lose huge.  he lost, but he overperformed. 

if your takeaway is that he underperformed, that's inaccurate.  if your take is that he was a drag on the gop side, that's also inaccurate, because they largely overperformed as well.

Since 1900 there have only been 5 elected presidents that didn't win their re-election:

Taft- who likely would have won if Teddy Roosevelt didn't split the republican vote and run as a third party

Hoover- who presided over the depression

Carter- who I think can safely be argued as an accidental president running so soon after Nixon resigning and Watergate

Bush 41- who was really Regan's 3rd term, and even there you had a goofy election with a 3rd party Ross Perot

Trump- Covid and terrible personality.

 

That's it- that's the list of presidents that were elected that didn't win their re-election.  Teddy Roosevelt took over for a death and won re-election.  Truman took over for a death and won re-election, Johnson took over for a death and won re-election, Ford took over for a disgraced scandal and lost re-electon.  So- if you want to add the death's in there you see those successors all won.  Nixon got 1.5 terms and Ford got the other half, and even taking over for a disgraced former president the election was close.  Add in goofy third party heavily influenced losses for Bush 41 and Taft and you just see that a sitting president losing re-election is just a historical anamoly.  Is it totally and completely unprecedented?  No, but it takes some screwing up (depression, stagflation, Perot/voter fatigue after "Regan's 3rd term" Trump) to not win your re-election bid.  

He very much underperformed the historicals baseline shit.  The polls? Not so much. But with the beclowing there who knows how real they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Since 1900 there have only been 5 elected presidents that didn't win their re-election:

Taft- who likely would have won if Teddy Roosevelt didn't split the republican vote and run as a third party

Hoover- who presided over the depression

Carter- who I think can safely be argued as an accidental president running so soon after Nixon resigning and Watergate

Bush 41- who was really Regan's 3rd term, and even there you had a goofy election with a 3rd party Ross Perot

Trump- Covid and terrible personality.

 

That's it- that's the list of presidents that were elected that didn't win their re-election.  Teddy Roosevelt took over for a death and won re-election.  Truman took over for a death and won re-election, Johnson took over for a death and won re-election, Ford took over for a disgraced scandal and lost re-electon.  So- if you want to add the death's in there you see those successors all won.  Nixon got 1.5 terms and Ford got the other half, and even taking over for a disgraced former president the election was close.  Add in goofy third party heavily influenced losses for Bush 41 and Taft and you just see that a sitting president losing re-election is just a historical anamoly.  Is it totally and completely unprecedented?  No, but it takes some screwing up (depression, stagflation, Perot/voter fatigue after "Regan's 3rd term" Trump) to not win your re-election bid.  

He very much underperformed the historicals baseline shit.  The polls? Not so much. But with the beclowing there who knows how real they are.

this isn't a historical conversation or comparison.  and if it is, at least let's limit it to the information age.  people are plugged in 24 hours a day now, social media, cable news, and shit moves quickly.  i think there will be a lot more one term presidents percentage wise from 2000-2100 than from 1900-2000. 

the point is that he dramatically overperformed the polls (for the 2nd time) and the gop did well (a bunch of senators overperformed projections as well).  nobody feels safe in 22/24 nor should they.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...