B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Calling it now.

---

I would pick Warren as the most likely nominee right now.

Beto's NFL viral clip catapulted him to the national level. He's been on Ellen and Colbert in the past week.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Beto's NFL viral clip catapulted him to the national level. He's been on Ellen and Colbert in the past week.

---

Yeah, only trouble is that if he actually wins then I'm not sure he'd be on the ticket. Would Democrats want to give up such an unlikely Senate seat in Texas, for such a young guy?

sycasey said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Beto's NFL viral clip catapulted him to the national level. He's been on Ellen and Colbert in the past week.

---

Yeah, only trouble is that if he actually wins then I'm not sure he'd be on the ticket. Would Democrats want to give up such an unlikely Senate seat in Texas, for such a young guy?

---

I don't know what the experts say about it, but now that Beto has entered the national stage, it's conceivable that he could be on the ticket even if he lost. Maybe not a wise decision from the standpoint of picking a running mate to safely deliver the home state of the running mate, but he just has "it" and he's gaining a lot of national attention.

Beto is what, 40? He has some time. Heck if he runs in 10 years, he'd still be considered young...but he has momentum now. Any way, if it's Warren/O'Rourke and they get the nod...you take the VP because that sets up the next generation since Warren is 69. Beto might be able to leap frog Warren. Right now even the GOP are saying he's now a national candidate.

Another Bear said:

---

Beto is what, 40? He has some time. Heck if he runs in 10 years, he'd still be considered young...but he has momentum now. Any way, if it's Warren/O'Rourke and they get the nod...you take the VP because that sets up the next generation since Warren is 69. Beto might be able to leap frog Warren. Right now even the GOP are saying he's now a national candidate.

---

He's 45.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Beto is what, 40? He has some time. Heck if he runs in 10 years, he'd still be considered young...but he has momentum now. Any way, if it's Warren/O'Rourke and they get the nod...you take the VP because that sets up the next generation since Warren is 69. Beto might be able to leap frog Warren. Right now even the GOP are saying he's now a national candidate.

---

He's 45.

---

He's still young. Any way, I hope he wins Texas. That would set him up well, either for the long term or national office. Having the senate under his belt can only help him.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

I don't know what the experts say about it, but now that Beto has entered the national stage, it's conceivable that he could be on the ticket even if he lost.

---

I actually think he'd be more likely to be on the ticket if he lost.

Beto's "true to form" = this guy is a solid counterpuncher.
_________________

Q: What do you admire about your opponent?

Beto O'Rourke: I admire his sacrifice and love of country.

Ted Cruz: "I think you are absolutely sincere, like Bernie [Sanders], that you believe in expanding government and higher taxes."

The debate was a tie. Neither candidate deviated or was thrown off of their plan for electoral victory.

Cruz is correct to think his best chance is to toss freshly cut red meat to his base. There's enough of them in Texas to push him over the top, if the state stays in the bottom 5 in voter turnout. Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Hillary (twice, at least) and even Ocasio-Cortez all got a mention, as did guns, God, and aliens. No attempts whatsoever at reaching the center were made.

Beto knows that the only way a Democrat wins in Texas is by appealing to as many different subsets of the voting population as possible, while also attempting to reach out to the massive block of non-voters with a message of inclusion. If such a task is even possible in present-day Texas, this debate didn't hurt him at all.

Whoa...6 siblings appear on a political ad against their own brother.



Six siblings of a GOP congressman endorsed his opponent. Here's how he responded.

Tuesday the outlet released the poll's generic ballot numbers, showing Democrats with a 13-point advantage (54 41 percent) and a yawning 30-point advantage among women, while losing men by 5 points.

Of course they're losing men. It's becoming increasingly clear that we white males will be an endangered species if the Dems retake Congress.

https://www.axios.com/2018-midterms-democratic-primary-voter-turnout-9b94a3c2-1c59-4be6-8595-b31968e0e07d.html

I just finished Kurt Schlicter;s Militant Normals. A great read. Most of you clowns are in the book. Yessirreebob! Let's make the rest of the country Berkeley.

BearsWiin said:

---

Of course they're losing men. It's becoming increasingly clear that we white males will be an endangered species if the Dems retake Congress.

---

We will all become c#nty.

When dicks are outlawed only c$nts will have dicks.

bearister said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

Of course they're losing men. It's becoming increasingly clear that we white males will be an endangered species if the Dems retake Congress.

---

We will all become c#nty.

---

These twats got a head start on that. It's part of the conservative and fascist DNA. Serious bunch of whiners and douschenozzles.

bearister said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

Of course they're losing men. It's becoming increasingly clear that we white males will be an endangered species if the Dems retake Congress.

---

We will all become c#nty.

---

I like this post. Be careful with your characterizations, though; recent experience here suggests that truly c#nty people object to being called c#nty.

BearsWiin said:

---

bearister said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

Of course they're losing men. It's becoming increasingly clear that we white males will be an endangered species if the Dems retake Congress.

---

We will all become c#nty.

---

I like this post. Be careful with your characterizations, though; recent experience here suggests that truly c#nty people object to being called c#nty.

---

The post was in honor of your historical dust up with c#nty.

I figgered as much, you lawyerly types remember stuff

BearsWiin said:

---

I figgered as much, you lawyerly types remember stuff

---

Except stuff like if we drank too much in college and were a bit rapey.

You know how the GOP have used the Clintons for 20 years as their #1 enemy. They raised massive amounts of money and riled the base. Well guess what, the Dems now have Kavanaugh...big time and they have pledged to go after him. Sound familiar?

Of course the GOP are saying so what, big deal. That might have been the case in the past but the Dems have raised an unprecedented amount of money, and the vast majority by individual small donors.

Janz who is running agains Nunes raised $4.3m in just the last quarter alone. Nunes is still the favorite but that kind of fund raising is scaring the crap out of the GOP because corporate funds are drying up and they don't have the same numbers or enthusiasm.

Seems the game flipped and the GOP didn't realize it.

Unfortunately, there are very few undecided voters in the Nunes Janz race. California districts are gerrymandered. Nunes district is almost challenge proof. Damn.

kjkbear said:

---

Unfortunately, there are very few undecided voters in the Nunes Janz race. California districts are gerrymandered. Nunes district is almost challenge proof. Damn.

---

CA districts are NOT gerrymandered like they are in other states. An independent commission draws the lines. Nunes' district is just within the Central Valley, which has been very Republican for a while. If Janz even keeps it close that represents a big swing.

It was designed as a safe seat. I call that gerrymandering. So is Democrat Jim Costa's district right next door. Different parties. No difference as to gerrymandered seat. It's not North Carolina. But Phil Burton of San Francisco perfected gerrymandering in the 70s and 80s. Partly to protect brother John.

Janz is still the underdog to Nunes but that kind of money must give him pause or wonder if he'll crap his pants.

Any way, yes congressional districts are semi-rigged. It's part of the deal. I think some of the recent jerrymandering has gone beyond a "home field" advantage...and thus the lawsuits and feds coming in, in a few states. That hasn't happened in California.

That said, the blue wave scare is in SoCal. 4-6 traditional GOP districts are in toss-up races. We're talking prime Reagan country going Democrat. I think the sensible and educated women in these districts are going to drive the flip. They were okay with the economics but not okay with Trump or Kavanaugh. Pink wave will be driving the blue wave.

kjkbear said:

---

It was designed as a safe seat. I call that gerrymandering. So is Democrat Jim Costa's district right next door. Different parties. No difference as to gerrymandered seat. It's not North Carolina. But Phil Burton of San Francisco perfected gerrymandering in the 70s and 80s. Partly to protect brother John.

---

What evidence do you have that this was specifically designed as a safe seat for Nunes (or any Republican). Just being a district in a conservative area doesn't qualify. How did the committee draw it to favor an incumbent or a political party?

Even with the fairest district lines you'll still wind up with places that are not competitive. For example, there is no way you could draw a district in the S.F. Bay Area that will realistically elect a Republican. There just aren't enough of their voters here. That doesn't mean those seats are "designed" to be safe for the Democratic incumbents.

Throwing money at Beto or Nunes opponent is a waste. Both are going to lose. Closer races that are more important than liberal fantasies.