Election 2020

[simple schoolboy]

Where the fuck is the coup I've been promised here for months?!

MAGA twitter is calling for Republican State governments to appoint pro Trump electors. Its getting sad.

Also kinda weird after the election was 'stolen' in 2016 the Dem local governments didn't try to improve their election systems. Now there is 0 impetus to do so as their guy won. How can we shame state and local election officials like we did in Florida after 2000 to improve their systems?

Shame moved out a long time ago. Some say it was the late nights. Others say the bright lights. Me, I think it was the lines of coke off the ass cheeks of denial.

Sure, thats very true. Florida could announce same night with some certainty. California takes weeks (not that it really matters). Everyone do whatever Florida did and then some.

[Bi_3]

Some sound thinking from Sen. Jon Tester on how the Dems can make inroads with rural voters:

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/n ... 99375.html

Interesting, I think he is largely correct. Here a similar stance from Michigan:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... war-436301


“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’ enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just understand what’s good for them. … It’s talking down to people. It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel so distant from the political process—it’s not their life, it’s not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.”


It really is that simple.

70 million people. How incredibly doom & gloom to assume that the overwhelming majority of this number share or support Trump's worst tendencies.

I don't know if they share his worst tendencies, but as of November 3rd, we know that they LITERALLY support them.

I don't think that a vote necessarily includes a whole hog endorsement of everything a candidate stands for. In fact, I can't for the life of me think of a politician in the history of the world who I support 100% of the time. Maybe I'm naïve in thinking this, but I think that's probably how the majority of voters think too.

That's not naive, that's kinda the point of what Tester and Slotkin are saying.

[Peeps]

those dems always using dark money...oh wait

and while it may not be illegal to do the republicans and their followers would have a canary if/when dems do this

[Higgs]

.. have a canary..

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[elliseamos]

Dems also benefit from dark money. Not as often, but to a considerable degree.

So would the phrase be more accurate if you said, "Ds keep up with Rs to a considerable degree, but are still behind Rs overall in the dark money totals."

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[elliseamos]

Dems also benefit from dark money. Not as often, but to a considerable degree.

So would the phrase be more accurate if you said, "Ds keep up with Rs to a considerable degree, but are still behind Rs overall in the dark money totals."

For overall dollars spent, and number of politicians who seem to have benefitted from dark money, I'd anecdotally say that Rs take a healthy lead; obviously their support of the Citizens United ruling helps advance this narrative.

But positioning the issue as a "Rs love it, Ds hate it" is a dangerous trap, because it's demonstrably false. And I'm not suggesting that's what anyone here was trying to say. But it does seem to be the party line of social media and in left-leaning press outlets, and it's a bunch of malarkey.

Agreed. I wasn't saying that Ds being behind in the total was indicative of anything. It does seem that dark money dollars are more aligned with more of what Rs are willing to pursue.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[The Argonaut]

OK, but there is a difference between hiding your identity and supporting good-faith candidates and real policy referendums and supporting bad-faith, all-but-fake candidates

(That said, if the Dems lost because 6,000 people who are convinced by flyers voted for an all-but-fake candidate, they deserved to lose. I prefer who know at least a little about what they're voting for.)

[B]

Some sound thinking from Sen. Jon Tester on how the Dems can make inroads with rural voters:

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/n ... 99375.html

Interesting, I think he is largely correct. Here a similar stance from Michigan:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... war-436301


“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’ enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just understand what’s good for them. … It’s talking down to people. It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel so distant from the political process—it’s not their life, it’s not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.”


It really is that simple.

70 million people. How incredibly doom & gloom to assume that the overwhelming majority of this number share or support Trump's worst tendencies.

I don't know if they share his worst tendencies, but as of November 3rd, we know that they LITERALLY support them.

I don't think that a vote necessarily includes a whole hog endorsement of everything a candidate stands for. In fact, I can't for the life of me think of a politician in the history of the world who I support 100% of the time. Maybe I'm naïve in thinking this, but I think that's probably how the majority of voters think too.

They don't like his rage tweeting, crime, and corruption, but they love the kidnapping Mexican children and chasing blacks out of the suburbs so much that they'll put up with it?

I literally can't think of a response to this double down take.

They don't like his complete inability to take action against COVID-19, but they love how he keeps Middle Easterners out of the US, so they'll put up with 250,000 dead Americans?

[elliseamos]

Some sound thinking from Sen. Jon Tester on how the Dems can make inroads with rural voters:

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/n ... 99375.html

Interesting, I think he is largely correct. Here a similar stance from Michigan:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... war-436301


“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’ enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just understand what’s good for them. … It’s talking down to people. It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel so distant from the political process—it’s not their life, it’s not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.”


It really is that simple.

70 million people. How incredibly doom & gloom to assume that the overwhelming majority of this number share or support Trump's worst tendencies.

I don't know if they share his worst tendencies, but as of November 3rd, we know that they LITERALLY support them.

I don't think that a vote necessarily includes a whole hog endorsement of everything a candidate stands for. In fact, I can't for the life of me think of a politician in the history of the world who I support 100% of the time. Maybe I'm naïve in thinking this, but I think that's probably how the majority of voters think too.

They don't like his rage tweeting, crime, and corruption, but they love the kidnapping Mexican children and chasing blacks out of the suburbs so much that they'll put up with it?

I literally can't think of a response to this double down take.

They don't like his complete inability to take action against COVID-19, but they love how he keeps Middle Easterners out of the US, so they'll put up with 250,000 dead Americans?

But, B, he speaks to them and includes them... more Dems should do this.

[B]

Some sound thinking from Sen. Jon Tester on how the Dems can make inroads with rural voters:

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/n ... 99375.html

Interesting, I think he is largely correct. Here a similar stance from Michigan:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... war-436301


“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’ enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just understand what’s good for them. … It’s talking down to people. It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel so distant from the political process—it’s not their life, it’s not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.”


It really is that simple.

70 million people. How incredibly doom & gloom to assume that the overwhelming majority of this number share or support Trump's worst tendencies.

I don't know if they share his worst tendencies, but as of November 3rd, we know that they LITERALLY support them.

I don't think that a vote necessarily includes a whole hog endorsement of everything a candidate stands for. In fact, I can't for the life of me think of a politician in the history of the world who I support 100% of the time. Maybe I'm naïve in thinking this, but I think that's probably how the majority of voters think too.

They don't like his rage tweeting, crime, and corruption, but they love the kidnapping Mexican children and chasing blacks out of the suburbs so much that they'll put up with it?

I literally can't think of a response to this double down take.

They don't like his complete inability to take action against COVID-19, but they love how he keeps Middle Easterners out of the US, so they'll put up with 250,000 dead Americans?

But, B, he speaks to them and includes them... more Dems should do this.

You've got your brown people mixed up.

[Rob]

Well, early data does seem to show Trump gained among Latinos (not just Cubans, but also in Texas), seems to have improved with Muslims & AAs too. Lost a lot of whites in the upper midwest, and lost some whites elsewhere too. Go figure. "Election 2020" lives up to its name.

[B]

I'd kind of like to photoshop MAGA hats on these people.

[Jorge]

... don't do that

[washing machine]

Oh B.

[B]

Hey, I'm glad all these Cuban and Venezuelan-Americans are safe and able to cast their anti-socialist vote. I just wish they recognized that if they had been unlucky enough to come through Mexico to ask for in the past 4 years to ask for asylum or citizenship, they'd be dead in a border-town ditch and their kids would be in a foster home in Missouri.

[verb_to_trust]

You should go down to Miami or something and say this stuff to some disgruntled cubans B. See how that goes.

[B]

You should go down to Miami or something and say this stuff to some disgruntled cubans B. See how that goes.

I'm not going to cross state lines and pick a fight with politically oppressed people until I see how the Rittenhouse trial goes.