Red Mosquito

she'll eat pence alive in a debate

Will Pence's wife have to be on stage too?

cutuphalfdead wrote:Will Pence's wife have to be on stage too?

Should've saved this one for Twitter!!!

Jorge wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Will Pence's wife have to be on stage too?

Should've saved this one for Twitter!!!

We deserve good content, too

Jorge wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Will Pence's wife have to be on stage too?

Should've saved this one for Twitter!!!

100%

cutuphalfdead wrote:Will Pence's wife have to be on stage too?

you mean mother.

Probably the first ticket ever where the VP has called the President a racist, so that's nice.

I wish I had made a prediction that Biden's VP pick announcement, whomever he chose, would prominently feature a comparison to Beau. It seems so obvious in retrospect. It's part of the reason why I thought Duckworth would be the final choice.

chud, go on Twitter and say Pence will have to talk to Harris through a hole in a sheet. You can have that one for free.

i bet he calls in sick

The Argonaut wrote:

Jorge wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Will Pence's wife have to be on stage too?

Should've saved this one for Twitter!!!

We deserve good content, too

you sure do

ugh. can we just vote already?

dimejinky99 wrote:

totally cool, onbrand messaging.

Wow, almost like Trump was always going to paint whoever the nominee was as part of the "loony left"

I'm genuinely curious how Biden/Harris' people are going to help advance that ticket given her history on weed crimes.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Mickey wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Mickey wrote:

digster wrote:According to Twitter (yeah, I know), Kaine was listed as a speaker before being announced as a VP in 2016, and they just changed the scheduling around. I don't think anyone is out of it yet for that reason.

Warren is definitely out, which, again, is so funny insofar as it confirms that her campaign was little more than left-spoiler.

I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion

Pretty easily--what else did she accomplish by her candidacy? She didn't accrue enough delegates to have a say in the party's platform, she's unlikely to be named to the cabinet given the fact that she's a blue Senate seat in a currently-red state. She was out of contention after New Hampshire, and yet continued to run through Super Tuesday, and we know from polling that her supporters would have broken for Bernie (i.e. the left) more than any other candidate. So, maybe you could have argued that staying in the race was a strategic decision en route to becoming VP--where the position is offered either as a reward for publicly kneecapping Bernie or because she kept her national profile, and her delegate count, high enough to merit consideration as representative of a significant voting block--but then, she would have be named VP for that argument to hold any water. Otherwise, what are you left with? What did she do?

I fundamentally view the bold part as needlessly cynical. I believe Warren to be a principled politician. I'm sure she'll get a spot in the cabinet, but I also believe she would have conducted herself the same throughout her campaign regardless of potential second-banana outcomes.

Okay but why do you believe that? Because you're using "conducting herself the same" here to mean that she would have continued to run an expensive campaign long past her expiration date whether or not she was drawing votes from her left-wing competitor--in other words, that there was actually no reason, no justification, no carrot at the end of the stick guiding her behavior. Does that make her principled? Smart? Leaving aside the fact that you actually cannot disregard the outcome, and the result of this (confirmed today!) is that the two most vocal opponents to Medicare for All--something Warren reportedly likes--are on the ticket. So where did those principles get her? What did she accomplish? Not "What did she intend to happen," but what did she actually do?

Simple Torture wrote:chud, go on Twitter and say Pence will have to talk to Harris through a hole in a sheet. You can have that one for free.

As opposed to the usual hole in the truck stop bathroom stall door?

Trump's really lost a step with the nicknames.

Mickey wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Mickey wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Mickey wrote:

digster wrote:According to Twitter (yeah, I know), Kaine was listed as a speaker before being announced as a VP in 2016, and they just changed the scheduling around. I don't think anyone is out of it yet for that reason.

Warren is definitely out, which, again, is so funny insofar as it confirms that her campaign was little more than left-spoiler.

I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion

Pretty easily--what else did she accomplish by her candidacy? She didn't accrue enough delegates to have a say in the party's platform, she's unlikely to be named to the cabinet given the fact that she's a blue Senate seat in a currently-red state. She was out of contention after New Hampshire, and yet continued to run through Super Tuesday, and we know from polling that her supporters would have broken for Bernie (i.e. the left) more than any other candidate. So, maybe you could have argued that staying in the race was a strategic decision en route to becoming VP--where the position is offered either as a reward for publicly kneecapping Bernie or because she kept her national profile, and her delegate count, high enough to merit consideration as representative of a significant voting block--but then, she would have be named VP for that argument to hold any water. Otherwise, what are you left with? What did she do?

I fundamentally view the bold part as needlessly cynical. I believe Warren to be a principled politician. I'm sure she'll get a spot in the cabinet, but I also believe she would have conducted herself the same throughout her campaign regardless of potential second-banana outcomes.

Okay but why do you believe that? Because you're using "conducting herself the same" here to mean that she would have continued to run an expensive campaign long past her expiration date whether or not she was drawing votes from her left-wing competitor--in other words, that there was actually no reason, no justification, no carrot at the end of the stick guiding her behavior. Does that make her principled? Smart? Leaving aside the fact that you actually cannot disregard the outcome, and the result of this (confirmed today!) is that the two most vocal opponents to Medicare for All--something Warren reportedly likes--are on the ticket. So where did those principles get her? What did she accomplish? Not "What did she intend to happen," but what did she actually do?

I think sometimes we overrate the rationality of these campaigns. She had enough money and enough support; and when is she going to run again than now? This was likely going to be her one chance to win.