Re: Election 2020
Posted: Mon June 10, 2019 6:26 am
He lost ground when Bernie promised $1001 a month.verb_to_trust wrote:Where's Yang?
Page 50 of 51
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Mon June 10, 2019 6:13 pm
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Tue June 11, 2019 7:37 pm
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Wed June 12, 2019 12:01 pm
How does the polling look in the six states that will decide the election?
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Wed June 12, 2019 4:26 pm
Mickey wrote:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ction-oddsHere are the raw numbers for Trump in the states that are expected to be competitive in the 2020 election:
New Hampshire: 39 percent approval, 58 percent disapproval
Wisconsin: 42 percent approval, 55 percent disapproval
Michigan: 42 percent approval, 54 percent disapproval
Iowa: 42 percent approval, 54 percent disapproval
Arizona: 45 percent approval, 51 percent disapproval
Pennsylvania 45 percent approval, 52 percent disapproval
Ohio: 46 percent approval, 50 percent disapproval
North Carolina: 46 percent approval, 50 percent disapproval
Florida: 48 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval
Indiana: 49 percent approval, 46 percent disapproval
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Wed June 12, 2019 8:19 pm
People forgot about this guy quickly.
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Wed June 12, 2019 11:43 pm
A damn good question.
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Thu June 13, 2019 6:49 pm
I want to rant about some on the left who are railing against some of the Democratic presidential candidates' refusal to instead run for the Senate:
1. While I think there's some truth that Democrats might have more difficulty winning Senate seats these days, I think many overstate that difficulty, and successfully winning the presidency should have long enough coat tails to carry over an unexpected Senate seat win or two here or there.
2. If these candidates don't want to run the Senate, then why would you want them to run? Wouldn't you rather run someone who is fully devoted to winning that race?
3. And why assume that these candidates are the only ones capable of winning Senate seats, or that they're the best ones? Maybe their refusal to run will open up opportunity for better candidates. (As a corollary to this point, there's particular complaint about how many of them are white men. Perhaps the white men, under the notion that they overestimate their capability, will do so here and clear the way for those who aren't white men to run for the Senate.)
4. And some of these candidates may still run for the Senate after their presidential campaigns crash and burn. Remember Marco Rubio from 2016?
1. While I think there's some truth that Democrats might have more difficulty winning Senate seats these days, I think many overstate that difficulty, and successfully winning the presidency should have long enough coat tails to carry over an unexpected Senate seat win or two here or there.
2. If these candidates don't want to run the Senate, then why would you want them to run? Wouldn't you rather run someone who is fully devoted to winning that race?
3. And why assume that these candidates are the only ones capable of winning Senate seats, or that they're the best ones? Maybe their refusal to run will open up opportunity for better candidates. (As a corollary to this point, there's particular complaint about how many of them are white men. Perhaps the white men, under the notion that they overestimate their capability, will do so here and clear the way for those who aren't white men to run for the Senate.)
4. And some of these candidates may still run for the Senate after their presidential campaigns crash and burn. Remember Marco Rubio from 2016?
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Thu June 13, 2019 6:57 pm
I haven't seen this directed at anyone other than Beto, which I think is legitimate. He came very close to unseating Cruz and would have a similarly good shot at taking down Cornyn especially with presidential year turnouts, so it seems like a waste not to pivot directly into a second senate campaign, even if that's where he ends up eventually (and of course he's also not an incumbent like Marco). Otherwise, the Dem field is set and unlikely to change so it just seems like a waste of money for a lot of them. No one gives a shit about Moulton or Hickenlooper and 18 months is not going to charge that. But I don't buy the argument that the bare fact of having them in the race is going to hurt the eventual nominee and I don't particularly want any of these psychos running for senate either.Green Habit wrote:I want to rant about some on the left who are railing against some of the Democratic presidential candidates' refusal to instead run for the Senate:
1. While I think there's some truth that Democrats might have more difficulty winning Senate seats these days, I think many overstate that difficulty, and successfully winning the presidency should have long enough coat tails to carry over an unexpected Senate seat win or two here or there.
2. If these candidates don't want to run the Senate, then why would you want them to run? Wouldn't you rather run someone who is fully devoted to winning that race?
3. And why assume that these candidates are the only ones capable of winning Senate seats, or that they're the best ones? Maybe their refusal to run will open up opportunity for better candidates. (As a corollary to this point, there's particular complaint about how many of them are white men. Perhaps the white men, under the notion that they overestimate their capability, will do so here and clear the way for those who aren't white men to run for the Senate.)
4. And some of these candidates may still run for the Senate after their presidential campaigns crash and burn. Remember Marco Rubio from 2016?
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Thu June 13, 2019 7:11 pm
Steve Bullock got beat up substantially on Twitter over this tweet, with at least three quarters of the replies ordering him to run for Senate. (Wouldn't mind hearing trag's take on this since it's Montana.) Hickenlooper gets this a lot too. I would agree that the criticism is best lobbied against Beto.Mickey wrote:I haven't seen this directed at anyone other than Beto, which I think is legitimate.
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Thu June 13, 2019 10:56 pm
this promises to be an absolute shitshow.
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Thu June 13, 2019 11:36 pm
10 per night means there's exactly the same amount of people on stage as the first GOP debate in 2016.
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Fri June 14, 2019 12:05 am
FUCK ICE
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Fri June 14, 2019 12:17 am
is it single or double elimination?cutuphalfdead wrote:10 per night means there's exactly the same amount of people on stage as the first GOP debate in 2016.
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Fri June 14, 2019 12:21 am
Can we pass a law that says no one can run for public office more than a year before the election date?
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Fri June 14, 2019 12:22 am
We should start taking reservations for 2024 right now.Bi_3 wrote:Can we pass a law that says no one can run for public office more than a year before the election date?
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Fri June 14, 2019 12:36 am
Yeah I can't believe they left out the Gravel teensBurtReynolds wrote:
this promises to be an absolute shitshow.
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Sun June 23, 2019 8:45 pm
rUn FoR sEnAtE
Oh wait, he can't do so in PA until 2022, and they likely wouldn't want him to run anyway. So we need some other reason to go after this guy.
Oh wait, he can't do so in PA until 2022, and they likely wouldn't want him to run anyway. So we need some other reason to go after this guy.
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Sun June 23, 2019 9:13 pm
This is pretty great
It's just a limited strike.
It's just a limited strike.
Re: Election 2020
Posted: Mon June 24, 2019 12:02 am
Eh, Bernie has a point but so does she. What Clinton did in Iraq and what Bush did in Iraq aren't the same thing.