Red Mosquito

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: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.

washing machine wrote:

B wrote:

washing machine wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote: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.

Peeps wrote:.. have a canary..

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

tragabigzanda wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote: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.

washing machine wrote:

B wrote:

washing machine wrote:

B wrote:

washing machine wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote: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.

B wrote:

washing machine wrote:

B wrote:

washing machine wrote:

B wrote:

washing machine wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote: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 wrote:

B wrote:

washing machine wrote:

B wrote:

washing machine wrote:

B wrote:

washing machine wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote: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.

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