A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
The Midterm Elections
48,184 Views |
731 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by dajo9
They waited until the night before the election to say that? That should really help their candidates change their message to move the vote. Sounds like some excuse making by the Dems' brass.bearister said:
"Despite a roster of GOP candidates who are extreme by any standard, voters see Democrats as just as extreme, as well as far less concerned about the issues that most worry them."
Top Democrats warn party is seen as extreme on eve of midterms
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/07/democrats-midterm-extreme-warning-third-way
GoOskie said:I didn't know you're from Florida.Big C said:
When I visit, he always takes me around to show his buddies his cousin "from the land of fruits and nuts".
LOL. East Bay, born and raised, with zero plans to ever leave. (and i don't mean tampa bay)
Get out the vote. Country is so divided, your not changing hearts and minds at this late hour.movielover said:sycasey said:
Anyway, the current polling average seems to indicate a national environment that is close to even (the "generic ballot" national polls tend to sit somewhere between +2 R and +2 D). Thanks to gerrymandering, a tied national vote means Republicans win the House, so I expect that will happen. The Senate, because of the specific seats up this cycle and the poor candidates selected by GOP voters, is closer to a toss-up in this environment. I legitimately have no idea which way it goes.
Then why is President Biden going to hardcore Democrat areas? Doesn't compute.
wifeisafurd said:They waited until the night before the election to say that? That should really help their candidates change their message to move the vote. Sounds like some excuse making by the Dems' brass.bearister said:
"Despite a roster of GOP candidates who are extreme by any standard, voters see Democrats as just as extreme, as well as far less concerned about the issues that most worry them."
Top Democrats warn party is seen as extreme on eve of midterms
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/07/democrats-midterm-extreme-warning-third-way
"Changing the message" - that's the problem. It's not the message - it's the dreadful policies and results. Record inflation, proxy war w Russia, open border, closed schools, fentanyl deaths skyrocketing, etc.
wifeisafurd said:They waited until the night before the election to say that? That should really help their candidates change their message to move the vote. Sounds like some excuse making by the Dems' brass.bearister said:
"Despite a roster of GOP candidates who are extreme by any standard, voters see Democrats as just as extreme, as well as far less concerned about the issues that most worry them."
Top Democrats warn party is seen as extreme on eve of midterms
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/07/democrats-midterm-extreme-warning-third-way
They didn't wait. Corporate "Democratic" groups like Third Way are always saying the same thing. Corporate DC insider journalists always give them a write-up at key moments. According to the media, Democrats are always in disarray.
Has been actors for 100 Alexmovielover said:Russia hoax, Nursing home slaughter, Lockdowns, Border mess, Masks, School closures, Gas prices, Quarantine passports, Curfews, Inflation, Crime, Taxes, Assault on free speech, Assault on gun rights, Grooming children, Censorship, Antifa/BLM riots, weaponizing DOJ/IRS #Vote
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) November 7, 2022
The exact opposite, they plan things out in detail. Zuckbucks targeting Democrat districts, Mules/ drop boxes, Jan 6th (no extra police, Nancy Pelosi's daughter there filming it, etc), Antifa / BLM riots, liberal groups bailing out rioters, union members starting fights at Trump rallies (Project Veritas got thr leader on tape, who met w Barack Obama and spoke w Hillary Clinton daily), who to leak stories to, etc.
My guess is we won't know how the Senate went for a day to two, assuming it doesn't come down to another run-off in Georgia.eastcoastcal said:
538 is a poll aggregator, they don't conduct anything themselves. They produce nice visualizations & interactive models, but their own analysis has been getting more and more off the last 3 elections (2016, 18, 20). Definitely a good reference/tool but would not bother putting a ton of stock into their actual analysis/predictions.
House will easily be red, I think senate ranges from staying 50-50 to a R +3 gain. Governorships I think will be 30-20 in favor of Rs after this election.
Re: RCP rating Colorado Senate as a toss-up: no idea where they're getting that from. Seems to be one of the few races that are relatively safe for Ds. Bennet is fairly popular and has a consistently large lead in polls. Much likelier chance that WA senate or even NY gov is closer (seriously, look at the polls).
Also I believe the people mentioning Oregon's race are referring to the governors race, not the senate one. The republican is looking like she has a pretty good shot to win- Drazan is slightly ahead in polls and Kate Brown (the outgoing governor) is reviled, the lowest-approval rating in the nation. Even Kotek's own internal poll only has her up +2, which generally indicates she's losing.
Will be an interesting election night. Wonder how soon we'll have results for some of the tighter races!
I suggest you respond to Bearrister's post.dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:They waited until the night before the election to say that? That should really help their candidates change their message to move the vote. Sounds like some excuse making by the Dems' brass.bearister said:
"Despite a roster of GOP candidates who are extreme by any standard, voters see Democrats as just as extreme, as well as far less concerned about the issues that most worry them."
Top Democrats warn party is seen as extreme on eve of midterms
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/07/democrats-midterm-extreme-warning-third-way
They didn't wait. Corporate "Democratic" groups like Third Way are always saying the same thing. Corporate DC insider journalists always give them a write-up at key moments. According to the media, Democrats are always in disarray.
The good news is that Trump more or less announced his candidacy for president in 2024 today. He probably won't officially announce for a while (big news in 2 weeks!) because once he announces he will no longer be able to get the RNC to pay his legal bills and will have to use the money from his own campaign to do so.
I wish the "liberal" media would just run with it and say he's the candidate instead of always doing this will he/won't he game. He's the 2024 nominee and Ron DeSantis and all the other loser GOP potential nominees have to accept that he stole their lunch money again. Tom Cotton has already run for the hills because he knows he doesn't stand a chance but he will resurface when Trump finally dies or whatever.
I wish the "liberal" media would just run with it and say he's the candidate instead of always doing this will he/won't he game. He's the 2024 nominee and Ron DeSantis and all the other loser GOP potential nominees have to accept that he stole their lunch money again. Tom Cotton has already run for the hills because he knows he doesn't stand a chance but he will resurface when Trump finally dies or whatever.
DeSantis has a $200M (?) warchest, and the UniParty has lined him up as the new Country Club Republican / Ted Cruz / Jeb Bush challenger. They will do everything and anything to stop President Trump.
Hence, Trump's recent quip of "Ron Sactimonious".
https://rumble.com/v1ronwu-ron-desantis-never-stop-fighting-for-freedom-ad-will-give-you-chills.html
Hence, Trump's recent quip of "Ron Sactimonious".
https://rumble.com/v1ronwu-ron-desantis-never-stop-fighting-for-freedom-ad-will-give-you-chills.html
wifeisafurd said:My guess is we won't know how the Senate went for a day to two, assuming it doesn't come down to another run-off in Georgia.eastcoastcal said:
538 is a poll aggregator, they don't conduct anything themselves. They produce nice visualizations & interactive models, but their own analysis has been getting more and more off the last 3 elections (2016, 18, 20). Definitely a good reference/tool but would not bother putting a ton of stock into their actual analysis/predictions.
House will easily be red, I think senate ranges from staying 50-50 to a R +3 gain. Governorships I think will be 30-20 in favor of Rs after this election.
Re: RCP rating Colorado Senate as a toss-up: no idea where they're getting that from. Seems to be one of the few races that are relatively safe for Ds. Bennet is fairly popular and has a consistently large lead in polls. Much likelier chance that WA senate or even NY gov is closer (seriously, look at the polls).
Also I believe the people mentioning Oregon's race are referring to the governors race, not the senate one. The republican is looking like she has a pretty good shot to win- Drazan is slightly ahead in polls and Kate Brown (the outgoing governor) is reviled, the lowest-approval rating in the nation. Even Kotek's own internal poll only has her up +2, which generally indicates she's losing.
Will be an interesting election night. Wonder how soon we'll have results for some of the tighter races!
Yeah, PA and AZ take forever to count (NV isn't super fast either), and GA is probably going to a runoff. Get comfy.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I have thought, the constitution currently says a president can serve 2 terms or 10 years.
Yet, if Trump were to win in 2024, he'd likely try to say he should get to run again in 2028 and serve 2 years - with no changes to the constitution. He'd pass his presidency to his VP in this scenario.
Who else thinks he'd do that, too?
This is not asking whether he'd try to change the constitution and be President For Life, but you can go there, too, if you like.
I have thought, the constitution currently says a president can serve 2 terms or 10 years.
Yet, if Trump were to win in 2024, he'd likely try to say he should get to run again in 2028 and serve 2 years - with no changes to the constitution. He'd pass his presidency to his VP in this scenario.
Who else thinks he'd do that, too?
This is not asking whether he'd try to change the constitution and be President For Life, but you can go there, too, if you like.
I've been seeing ads on the Senate race recently, which is VERY weird. Wyden should be as safe as safe can possibly be. I still cannot imagine him losing but it says something that he / his proxies are spending money against a no-name opponent, and that she/her proxies are spending money too.eastcoastcal said:
538 is a poll aggregator, they don't conduct anything themselves. They produce nice visualizations & interactive models, but their own analysis has been getting more and more off the last 3 elections (2016, 18, 20). Definitely a good reference/tool but would not bother putting a ton of stock into their actual analysis/predictions.
House will easily be red, I think senate ranges from staying 50-50 to a R +3 gain. Governorships I think will be 30-20 in favor of Rs after this election.
Re: RCP rating Colorado Senate as a toss-up: no idea where they're getting that from. Seems to be one of the few races that are relatively safe for Ds. Bennet is fairly popular and has a consistently large lead in polls. Much likelier chance that WA senate or even NY gov is closer (seriously, look at the polls).
Also I believe the people mentioning Oregon's race are referring to the governors race, not the senate one. The republican is looking like she has a pretty good shot to win- Drazan is slightly ahead in polls and Kate Brown (the outgoing governor) is reviled, the lowest-approval rating in the nation. Even Kotek's own internal poll only has her up +2, which generally indicates she's losing.
Will be an interesting election night. Wonder how soon we'll have results for some of the tighter races!
Some stuff I've seen recently indicates some number of people who had supported the 3rd party candidate are moving back to Kotek, giving her a bump.
I continue to say I'll believe it (that Oregon elects an R in a statewide race) when I see it.
I tend to agree with Sycasey's ultimate conclusion.movielover said:Then why is President Biden going to hardcore Democrat areas? Doesn't compute.sycasey said:
Anyway, the current polling average seems to indicate a national environment that is close to even (the "generic ballot" national polls tend to sit somewhere between +2 R and +2 D). Thanks to gerrymandering, a tied national vote means Republicans win the House, so I expect that will happen. The Senate, because of the specific seats up this cycle and the poor candidates selected by GOP voters, is closer to a toss-up in this environment. I legitimately have no idea which way it goes.
Dem's are sending their big guns where they are sending them because they are on defense. They know the house is gone but they are trying to limit the damage; they know they've got a chance in the Senate, which is why you saw their heavy hitters in PA, NH, NV, AZ, GA, etc.
Great question.concordtom said:
Can anyone post a list of states that count mail-in:
1. BEFORE Election Day
2. ON Election Day (and therefore may have late swings)
3. At CLOSE of Election Day (and therefore WILL have late swings)
We have full mail in voting in Oregon. I honestly do not know when they are counted. I do observe that I stop getting mailers if I vote early. But that might just mean the state keeps record of who has voted. I also observe that we usually see nearly immediate voting results. But that might just mean they spent the day (voting day) counting votes. I honestly do not know.
Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
To me it seems pretty clear that he doesn't. Fetterman's stroke is the reason he has a shot.
I had never really thought about it but couldn't anyone do that? I'm thinking it is Constitutional but people (politicians) have realized it is a bad idea and not done it.concordtom said:
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I have thought, the constitution currently says a president can serve 2 terms or 10 years.
Yet, if Trump were to win in 2024, he'd likely try to say he should get to run again in 2028 and serve 2 years - with no changes to the constitution. He'd pass his presidency to his VP in this scenario.
Who else thinks he'd do that, too?
This is not asking whether he'd try to change the constitution and be President For Life, but you can go there, too, if you like.
I am interested in getting past tonight before thinking about 2024.
My Senate predictions:sycasey said:To me it seems pretty clear that he doesn't. Fetterman's stroke is the reason he has a shot.tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
NH - Bolduc
PA - Fetterman
OH - Vance
GA - Runoff, maybe Walker in a squeaker
CO - Bennett
AZ - Masters
WI - Johnson
NV - toss up. The Harry Reid machine still exists and Laxalt is reportedly Oz-like in not connecting with voters.
If my math is correct I think that puts R's +1 with a chance to get to +3. Dem's path for keeping the Senate are winning NH, NV and Zona to get them to +2 with GA being a run off.
It's definitely not constitutional lol. If you win twice, you aren't eligible to run again. See 22nd amendment. The 2 year thing applies if the VP or whomever is replacing the president mid-term.tequila4kapp said:I had never really thought about it but couldn't anyone do that? I'm thinking it is Constitutional but people (politicians) have realized it is a bad idea and not done it.concordtom said:
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I have thought, the constitution currently says a president can serve 2 terms or 10 years.
Yet, if Trump were to win in 2024, he'd likely try to say he should get to run again in 2028 and serve 2 years - with no changes to the constitution. He'd pass his presidency to his VP in this scenario.
Who else thinks he'd do that, too?
This is not asking whether he'd try to change the constitution and be President For Life, but you can go there, too, if you like.
I am interested in getting past tonight before thinking about 2024.
Geez, that's my incredibly stupid move for the year. My only excuse is not enough coffee. I'll go put my dunce cap on.Unit2Sucks said:It's definitely not constitutional lol. If you win twice, you aren't eligible to run again. See 22nd amendment. The 2 year thing applies if the VP or whomever is replacing the president mid-term.tequila4kapp said:I had never really thought about it but couldn't anyone do that? I'm thinking it is Constitutional but people (politicians) have realized it is a bad idea and not done it.concordtom said:
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I have thought, the constitution currently says a president can serve 2 terms or 10 years.
Yet, if Trump were to win in 2024, he'd likely try to say he should get to run again in 2028 and serve 2 years - with no changes to the constitution. He'd pass his presidency to his VP in this scenario.
Who else thinks he'd do that, too?
This is not asking whether he'd try to change the constitution and be President For Life, but you can go there, too, if you like.
I am interested in getting past tonight before thinking about 2024.
To ConcordTom's Q: No, Trump will not do this. It is explicitly prohibited by the C's 22nd Am.
tequila4kapp said:My Senate predictions:sycasey said:To me it seems pretty clear that he doesn't. Fetterman's stroke is the reason he has a shot.tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
NH - Bolduc
PA - Fetterman
OH - Vance
GA - Runoff, maybe Walker in a squeaker
CO - Bennett
AZ - Masters
WI - Johnson
NV - toss up. The Harry Reid machine still exists and Laxalt is reportedly Oz-like in not connecting with voters.
If my math is correct I think that puts R's +1 with a chance to get to +3. Dem's path for keeping the Senate are winning NH, NV and Zona to get them to +2 with GA being a run off.
What is your reaction should GA elect Walker?
tequila4kapp said:Geez, that's my incredibly stupid move for the year. My only excuse is not enough coffee. I'll go put my dunce cap on.Unit2Sucks said:It's definitely not constitutional lol. If you win twice, you aren't eligible to run again. See 22nd amendment. The 2 year thing applies if the VP or whomever is replacing the president mid-term.tequila4kapp said:I had never really thought about it but couldn't anyone do that? I'm thinking it is Constitutional but people (politicians) have realized it is a bad idea and not done it.concordtom said:
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I have thought, the constitution currently says a president can serve 2 terms or 10 years.
Yet, if Trump were to win in 2024, he'd likely try to say he should get to run again in 2028 and serve 2 years - with no changes to the constitution. He'd pass his presidency to his VP in this scenario.
Who else thinks he'd do that, too?
This is not asking whether he'd try to change the constitution and be President For Life, but you can go there, too, if you like.
I am interested in getting past tonight before thinking about 2024.
To ConcordTom's Q: No, Trump will not do this. It is explicitly prohibited by the C's 22nd Am.
Thx.
This spells it out in a way I had not previously read.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
I was simply thinking it was "nobody can serve more than 2 terms". The word "elected" above alters the interpretation.
Thank god they passed that, to prevent a madman who fools the masses.
Now, what to do about a mad party??
tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
Being a carpetbagger in PA might not work, whereas New York was fine with HRC doing it.
movielover said:tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
Being a carpetbagger in PA might not work, whereas New York was fine with HRC doing it.
Yeah, and her emails, too!
She's a lesbian.
Benghazi.
She's about to faint, die.
And her emails.
(We need BI to bring back the :sarc: emoji!)
Honest reaction: I don't especially care. Things are not great with this economy for me and my family. We are struggling in ways that we didn't in prior years. I am squarely in the camp of I just want change; D policies are not working for me. I am likely going to get the essence of my wish with R's taking back the House.concordtom said:What is your reaction should GA elect Walker?tequila4kapp said:My Senate predictions:sycasey said:To me it seems pretty clear that he doesn't. Fetterman's stroke is the reason he has a shot.tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
NH - Bolduc
PA - Fetterman
OH - Vance
GA - Runoff, maybe Walker in a squeaker
CO - Bennett
AZ - Masters
WI - Johnson
NV - toss up. The Harry Reid machine still exists and Laxalt is reportedly Oz-like in not connecting with voters.
If my math is correct I think that puts R's +1 with a chance to get to +3. Dem's path for keeping the Senate are winning NH, NV and Zona to get them to +2 with GA being a run off.
I am extremely cynical of establishment politicians who are fundamentally interested in gaining and keeping power. In my world view Mitch McConnell is as much of a tool as Schumer. The only thing R Senators do that I like is nominate judges who align with my view of how to interpret the C. I am not going to get that with a D as President anyways. So if Walker wins there is some potential nominal benefit of mitigating the worst of Biden's judicial nominations and potentially nominating better ones in 2+ years. But I gave up my pie in the sky views that Rs were pure and great many many moons ago. The judicial benefits stuff is fairly abstract...and in the meantime I care a lot more about much more tangible things like having some extra money at the end of the month.
Say what you want about establishment politicians, but at least they aren't calling for vigilante justice. This is the GOP nominee for 2024. How is this better than establishment? He has no answers for the unfortunate economic circumstances your family is facing. No one does at the national level. But I can't see how electing a demagogue who very publicly wants to be a dictator will be good for business.tequila4kapp said:Honest reaction: I don't especially care. Things are not great with this economy for me and my family. We are struggling in ways that we didn't in prior years. I am squarely in the camp of I just want change; D policies are not working for me. I am likely going to get the essence of my wish with R's taking back the House.concordtom said:What is your reaction should GA elect Walker?tequila4kapp said:My Senate predictions:sycasey said:To me it seems pretty clear that he doesn't. Fetterman's stroke is the reason he has a shot.tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
NH - Bolduc
PA - Fetterman
OH - Vance
GA - Runoff, maybe Walker in a squeaker
CO - Bennett
AZ - Masters
WI - Johnson
NV - toss up. The Harry Reid machine still exists and Laxalt is reportedly Oz-like in not connecting with voters.
If my math is correct I think that puts R's +1 with a chance to get to +3. Dem's path for keeping the Senate are winning NH, NV and Zona to get them to +2 with GA being a run off.
I am extremely cynical of establishment politicians who are fundamentally interested in gaining and keeping power. In my world view Mitch McConnell is as much of a tool as Schumer. The only thing R Senators do that I like is nominate judges who align with my view of how to interpret the C. I am not going to get that with a D as President anyways. So if Walker wins there is some potential nominal benefit of mitigating the worst of Biden's judicial nominations and potentially nominating better ones in 2+ years. But I gave up my pie in the sky views that Rs were pure and great many many moons ago. The judicial benefits stuff is fairly abstract...and in the meantime I care a lot more about much more tangible things like having some extra money at the end of the month.
Have I heard him talk about the death penalty for drug dealers before. Yeah. Are drugs a scourge in society? Absolutely. But hearing the crowd cheer the notion of shooting people (what) without due process (pretty bad!) and sending a deathly memento to families (cruel) is sick
— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) November 8, 2022
This isn’t a policy fit for a free country. It’s violence. And also, who becomes a “drug dealer” in tbis environment. There’s no due process. How many African Americans have been pulled over out of suspicion of carrying drugs again? This. Is. bad.
— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) November 8, 2022
Here is the full clip of Trump talking favorably about enacting quick two-hour trials for drug dealers after which they are executed and the bullet is sent to their families. https://t.co/ClV8ux8aq5
— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) November 8, 2022
How do you feel about the danger of getting more "election denial" people into office on the R side?tequila4kapp said:Honest reaction: I don't especially care. Things are not great with this economy for me and my family. We are struggling in ways that we didn't in prior years. I am squarely in the camp of I just want change; D policies are not working for me. I am likely going to get the essence of my wish with R's taking back the House.concordtom said:What is your reaction should GA elect Walker?tequila4kapp said:My Senate predictions:sycasey said:To me it seems pretty clear that he doesn't. Fetterman's stroke is the reason he has a shot.tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
NH - Bolduc
PA - Fetterman
OH - Vance
GA - Runoff, maybe Walker in a squeaker
CO - Bennett
AZ - Masters
WI - Johnson
NV - toss up. The Harry Reid machine still exists and Laxalt is reportedly Oz-like in not connecting with voters.
If my math is correct I think that puts R's +1 with a chance to get to +3. Dem's path for keeping the Senate are winning NH, NV and Zona to get them to +2 with GA being a run off.
I am extremely cynical of establishment politicians who are fundamentally interested in gaining and keeping power. In my world view Mitch McConnell is as much of a tool as Schumer. The only thing R Senators do that I like is nominate judges who align with my view of how to interpret the C. I am not going to get that with a D as President anyways. So if Walker wins there is some potential nominal benefit of mitigating the worst of Biden's judicial nominations and potentially nominating better ones in 2+ years. But I gave up my pie in the sky views that Rs were pure and great many many moons ago. The judicial benefits stuff is fairly abstract...and in the meantime I care a lot more about much more tangible things like having some extra money at the end of the month.
Are you talking about Trump?
My views there are likely not as you suspect. I happen to agree with some / many of the America 1st agenda. Not all of it. But I am very worn down by the divisiveness. Trump is personally a tool. And IMO democrats have largely responded by showing their more ugly sides in return. They could have taken the high road, instead they get in the gutter with him. I'm tired of it all and want something better. (see the recent pot shot at DeSantis. You D's may not like DeSantis but for regular conservative types he's solid, certainly not deserving of in-family pot shots. And Trump is going to attack him? ***? I'm done with that version of politics).
I think Trump was right for 2016 but his window has closed. If he is losing people like me who are actually receptive to some amount of his policy stuff then...see window closing. My hunch today is he only gets elected if things continue to suck (IMO) with the economy AND D's nominate someone that really motivates R's. I currently see Biden as more of a guy who is too far to the left of the country and who is fighting dementia, not someone that people viscerally hate like HRC and Trump.
Also, I live in Oregon. My Presidential vote doesn't matter. Our ECs are going to the D candidate no matter what.
My views there are likely not as you suspect. I happen to agree with some / many of the America 1st agenda. Not all of it. But I am very worn down by the divisiveness. Trump is personally a tool. And IMO democrats have largely responded by showing their more ugly sides in return. They could have taken the high road, instead they get in the gutter with him. I'm tired of it all and want something better. (see the recent pot shot at DeSantis. You D's may not like DeSantis but for regular conservative types he's solid, certainly not deserving of in-family pot shots. And Trump is going to attack him? ***? I'm done with that version of politics).
I think Trump was right for 2016 but his window has closed. If he is losing people like me who are actually receptive to some amount of his policy stuff then...see window closing. My hunch today is he only gets elected if things continue to suck (IMO) with the economy AND D's nominate someone that really motivates R's. I currently see Biden as more of a guy who is too far to the left of the country and who is fighting dementia, not someone that people viscerally hate like HRC and Trump.
Also, I live in Oregon. My Presidential vote doesn't matter. Our ECs are going to the D candidate no matter what.
You guys are asking me personal questions. I'll answer. But let's understand we are entering the zone of someone's personal opinion and preferences, not fact based debate. So I'll appreciate some tact with your responses, as you obviously are going to disagree with me.sycasey said:How do you feel about the danger of getting more "election denial" people into office on the R side?tequila4kapp said:Honest reaction: I don't especially care. Things are not great with this economy for me and my family. We are struggling in ways that we didn't in prior years. I am squarely in the camp of I just want change; D policies are not working for me. I am likely going to get the essence of my wish with R's taking back the House.concordtom said:What is your reaction should GA elect Walker?tequila4kapp said:My Senate predictions:sycasey said:To me it seems pretty clear that he doesn't. Fetterman's stroke is the reason he has a shot.tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
NH - Bolduc
PA - Fetterman
OH - Vance
GA - Runoff, maybe Walker in a squeaker
CO - Bennett
AZ - Masters
WI - Johnson
NV - toss up. The Harry Reid machine still exists and Laxalt is reportedly Oz-like in not connecting with voters.
If my math is correct I think that puts R's +1 with a chance to get to +3. Dem's path for keeping the Senate are winning NH, NV and Zona to get them to +2 with GA being a run off.
I am extremely cynical of establishment politicians who are fundamentally interested in gaining and keeping power. In my world view Mitch McConnell is as much of a tool as Schumer. The only thing R Senators do that I like is nominate judges who align with my view of how to interpret the C. I am not going to get that with a D as President anyways. So if Walker wins there is some potential nominal benefit of mitigating the worst of Biden's judicial nominations and potentially nominating better ones in 2+ years. But I gave up my pie in the sky views that Rs were pure and great many many moons ago. The judicial benefits stuff is fairly abstract...and in the meantime I care a lot more about much more tangible things like having some extra money at the end of the month.
My answer: Zero concern. I see the Jan 6 House activities as being a total sham. There's likely an amount of truth to what they are pursuing but the entire thing was political theater and rigged, so I simply turn a blind eye to their supposed findings. (I think there were an assortment of irregularities in many states but I do not disbelieve the election results. Joe Biden is our President. I would call it a corollary to 1960 when Nixon was told the Kennedy's stole the election via the mob in Illinois. He chose not to challenge it, said it was more important to do what is best for the country, etc.)
Yes, I'm talking about Trump, the leader of the Republican party who will be the GOP nominee in 2024. Same guy. He is likely to run unopposed for the GOP nomination and we're already seeing potential adversaries withdrawing like Tom Cotton.tequila4kapp said:
Are you talking about Trump?
My views there are likely not as you suspect. I happen to agree with some / many of the America 1st agenda. Not all of it. But I am very worn down by the divisiveness. Trump is personally a tool. And IMO democrats have largely responded by showing their more ugly sides in return. They could have taken the high road, instead they get in the gutter with him. I'm tired of it all and want something better. (see the recent pot shot at DeSantis. You D's may not like DeSantis but for regular conservative types he's solid, certainly not deserving of in-family pot shots. And Trump is going to attack him? ***? I'm done with that version of politics).
I think Trump was right for 2016 but his window has closed. If he is losing people like me who are actually receptive to some amount of his policy stuff then...see window closing. My hunch today is he only gets elected if things continue to suck (IMO) with the economy AND D's nominate someone that really motivates R's. I currently see Biden as more of a guy who is too far to the left of the country and who is fighting dementia, not someone that people viscerally hate like HRC and Trump.
Also, I live in Oregon. My Presidential vote doesn't matter. Our ECs are going to the D candidate no matter what.
As for being disappointed by the D's not taking the high road, we have all seen how Obama's high road failed. You can't fight insurgents with traditional warfare, we learned that lesson in Vietnam and elsewhere. Trump has realigned the battlefield in American politics and is the only Republican that matters. You might think DeSantis is a "regular conservative type" but he's really just a very slightly cleaned up version of Trump, He apes everything Trump does and spends most of his time as governor of Florida engaging in white grievance / culture war stunts. Let's not pretend like he is some old fashioned conservative type. If you want to talk about someone like Kasick or Larry Hogan or DeWine, then that's a completely different story. But there are very obvious reasons why people like that have no national platform and zero pull within the GOP. Your party has been completely overtaken by the crazies and it's caused ripple effects throughout the political landscape.
As for Trump's "agenda" I think we can dispense with pretending there is one. The GOP had an actual party platform in 2016 which Trump largely ignored (apart from literally forcing them to take out the anti-Russia elements) and in 20202 they removed the platform entirely. There still isn't a Republican policy platform because the party has realized that its base doesn't care about policy. There is no agenda - there is grievance / culture war nonsense. This works great for GOP politicians because they've never really had answers for anything and now they can focus on whinging about things that they have no intention of changing. Once in a while they'll make something up - like Trump saying he would like to execute all drug dealers without due process - because that's red meat for the base, but by and large the GOP is just here to ask questions, not to generate policy positions and execute on them.
Speaking of which, Trump's infrastructure week should be any day now and I hear the GOP is about 2 weeks away from announcing their amazing Obamacare replacement.
As you said, you're in Oregon so your vote doesn't mean a whole lot on the national level. I'm legitimately interested in understanding your mindset and won't get agitated (though I can't promise others won't).tequila4kapp said:You guys are asking me personal questions. I'll answer. But let's understand we are entering the zone of someone's personal opinion and preferences, not fact based debate. So I'll appreciate some tact with your responses, as you obviously are going to disagree with me.sycasey said:How do you feel about the danger of getting more "election denial" people into office on the R side?tequila4kapp said:Honest reaction: I don't especially care. Things are not great with this economy for me and my family. We are struggling in ways that we didn't in prior years. I am squarely in the camp of I just want change; D policies are not working for me. I am likely going to get the essence of my wish with R's taking back the House.concordtom said:What is your reaction should GA elect Walker?tequila4kapp said:My Senate predictions:sycasey said:To me it seems pretty clear that he doesn't. Fetterman's stroke is the reason he has a shot.tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
NH - Bolduc
PA - Fetterman
OH - Vance
GA - Runoff, maybe Walker in a squeaker
CO - Bennett
AZ - Masters
WI - Johnson
NV - toss up. The Harry Reid machine still exists and Laxalt is reportedly Oz-like in not connecting with voters.
If my math is correct I think that puts R's +1 with a chance to get to +3. Dem's path for keeping the Senate are winning NH, NV and Zona to get them to +2 with GA being a run off.
I am extremely cynical of establishment politicians who are fundamentally interested in gaining and keeping power. In my world view Mitch McConnell is as much of a tool as Schumer. The only thing R Senators do that I like is nominate judges who align with my view of how to interpret the C. I am not going to get that with a D as President anyways. So if Walker wins there is some potential nominal benefit of mitigating the worst of Biden's judicial nominations and potentially nominating better ones in 2+ years. But I gave up my pie in the sky views that Rs were pure and great many many moons ago. The judicial benefits stuff is fairly abstract...and in the meantime I care a lot more about much more tangible things like having some extra money at the end of the month.
My answer: Zero concern. I see the Jan 6 House activities as being a total sham. There's likely an amount of truth to what they are pursuing but the entire thing was political theater and rigged, so I simply turn a blind eye to their supposed findings. (I think there were an assortment of irregularities in many states but I do not disbelieve the election results. Joe Biden is our President. I would call it a corollary to 1960 when Nixon was told the Kennedy's stole the election via the mob in Illinois. He chose not to challenge it, said it was more important to do what is best for the country, etc.)
Obviously I agree that the election results were legitimate, and disliking the format of the House committee hearings is whatever, water under the bridge. My question is more about all the GOP candidates who are actively campaigning on the idea that the election was illegitimate and saying that they will make sure the right person wins next time. Some of these folks will get into positions where they legitimately have a say in certifying the next elections (governors, secretaries of state, Congress itself). Any worry that all of this talk could lead to another legitimate election being overturned illegitimately, for political reasons?
concordtom said:tequila4kapp said:My Senate predictions:sycasey said:To me it seems pretty clear that he doesn't. Fetterman's stroke is the reason he has a shot.tequila4kapp said:Some people have "it" and others do not. If Oz can't pull ahead by a decent margin in this election cycle I tend to think it indicates he just doesn't have that it factor where he connects with voters.movielover said:
A friend in PA explained Ferterman's appeal - 'abortion'. That, and the stoner / disaffected / extreme contingent.
NH - Bolduc
PA - Fetterman
OH - Vance
GA - Runoff, maybe Walker in a squeaker
CO - Bennett
AZ - Masters
WI - Johnson
NV - toss up. The Harry Reid machine still exists and Laxalt is reportedly Oz-like in not connecting with voters.
If my math is correct I think that puts R's +1 with a chance to get to +3. Dem's path for keeping the Senate are winning NH, NV and Zona to get them to +2 with GA being a run off.
What is your reaction should GA elect Walker?
You weren't asking me, but if Georgia elects Walker I will be stunned. He SHOULD BE completely unelectable.
If he wins it goes to show that Republicans will vote for ANYONE with an (R) next to their name.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Host Big Group For 127th Big Game
by Jim McGill
Bears Rain 3's on Grambling State, Win 86-63
by Jim McGill
The Rodcast - Cal vs USC Breakdown
by Rod Benson
Ultimate Insider Podcast E99: Syracuse Wrap-up, Stanford Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
Cal Football Weekly Presser - Big Game Week
by Jim McGill