I was once the victim of scope bite trying out a friend's 7mm magnum rifle. Nearly snapped my glasses at the bridge. Very embarrassing
2020 Election - Catch-all Thread
323,301 Views |
2434 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Unit2Sucks
What is Rand Paul doing in the photographs that tRump has stored in an encrypted computer file?
1. Rand is seen de furring the family of squirrels he used to re seed his toupee;
2.
1. Rand is seen de furring the family of squirrels he used to re seed his toupee;
2.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Yeah there's a decent argument here that Bevin just sucks, and it's not really about Trump.
Looks like Dems are also taking control of both Virginia state houses. VA is deep blue now.
Nearly two-thirds of US voters say Trump has not made them better off
[url=https://www.ft.com/content/ce7e9f7c-fc13-11e9-a354-36acbbb0d9b6][/url]Quote:
FT-Peterson poll casts doubt on whether economic arguments will boost president's campaign
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they are not better off financially than they were when Donald Trump was elected, casting doubt on whether economic expansion and a record bull market will boost the president's re-election campaign in 2020.
According to a poll of likely voters conducted by the Financial Times and the Peter G Peterson Foundation, 31 per cent of Americans say they are now worse off financially than they were at the start of Mr Trump's presidency. Another 33 per cent say there has been no change in their financial position since Mr Trump's inauguration in January 2017, while 35 per cent say they are better off.
Persistently slow wage growth appeared to be a main driver of discontent, with 36 per cent of those who said they were worse off blaming their income levels. On Friday, the US labour department said average hourly income had risen 3 per cent in October, growth that was near highs for the past decade but lower than before the financial crisis. Another 19 per cent pointed to personal or family debts as the reason they felt worse off.
The FT-Peterson poll's findings underline the challenges facing Mr Trump, who is relying on his stewardship of the economy as a main argument for his re-election. The president has repeatedly touted stock market records and robust job creation as his administration's most important accomplishment, and has angrily blamed the US Federal Reserve for any signs of economic weakness.
Last week, after the latest US economic data showed gross domestic product had expanded by 1.9 per cent in the third quarter, Mr Trump said in a tweet: "The Greatest Economy in American History!"
https://www.ft.com/content/ce7e9f7c-fc13-11e9-a354-36acbbb0d9b6
Edited to add: I just realized I'm mostly repeating election news from upthread, though with a few more details.
As of around midnight (Tue. night/Wed. morning Nov. 5th/6th), a couple interesting state election results around the country:
One (likely?) Dem victory:
Looks like Democrat Andy Beshear is beating Republican Matt Bevin in the Kentucky governor race by about 5k votes with 100% of precincts reporting. I guess absentee ballots remain, but those (usually?) skew Dem. So maybe Beshear wins? Bevin is of course not conceding.
KY Governor Race
Another Dem victory:
Democrats win majorities in both houses of the Virginia state legislature (Republicans gerrymandered Virginia after 2010). Caveat is that the margins are pretty narrow (especially in the state senate, 21-19). But for the first time in decades, Virginia has a Dem governor, 2 Dem senators, and Dem majorities in both the state senate and state house.
VA State Legislature Race
One Republican victory:
Republicans win the Mississippi governor race by around 6 percentage points. I think this was expected, and the Dem candidate basically held Republican policy positions anyway? It's Mississippi and all.
MS Governor Race
As of around midnight (Tue. night/Wed. morning Nov. 5th/6th), a couple interesting state election results around the country:
One (likely?) Dem victory:
Looks like Democrat Andy Beshear is beating Republican Matt Bevin in the Kentucky governor race by about 5k votes with 100% of precincts reporting. I guess absentee ballots remain, but those (usually?) skew Dem. So maybe Beshear wins? Bevin is of course not conceding.
KY Governor Race
Another Dem victory:
Democrats win majorities in both houses of the Virginia state legislature (Republicans gerrymandered Virginia after 2010). Caveat is that the margins are pretty narrow (especially in the state senate, 21-19). But for the first time in decades, Virginia has a Dem governor, 2 Dem senators, and Dem majorities in both the state senate and state house.
VA State Legislature Race
One Republican victory:
Republicans win the Mississippi governor race by around 6 percentage points. I think this was expected, and the Dem candidate basically held Republican policy positions anyway? It's Mississippi and all.
MS Governor Race
OneKeg said:
One Republican victory:
Republicans win the Mississippi governor race by around 6 percentage points. I think this was expected, and the Dem candidate basically held Republican policy positions anyway? It's Mississippi and all.
MS Governor Race
And a 6-point win in a state as red as MS is not that impressive.
It's like when Sonny's first team beat Portland State by a touchdown. Sure we won, but that's not a good result.
The "closeness" of Mississippi was about Medicaid expansion.
Amazon's $1.45M fails to upend Seattle City Council, but tech giant wins small victories
You know what..FCCK Amazon and Jeff Bozos.
You know what..FCCK Amazon and Jeff Bozos.
I think this is more of an entertainment piece than a real analysis, but this guy's pitch is pretty dumb, and reeks of the self-righteousness and superiority complex that will get Trump elected to a second term by walking straight into the stereotype the conservatives paint of liberals and not acknowledging that you need to win swing states which have equal numbers of rural hillbillies as there are liberal commie city folk, and the election will be determined by the people that aren't either.okaydo said:
Further, he claims that electing a centrist who tries to pander to a wide swath of the populace will not result in generating change. The problem is that a Progressive will undoubtedly have a more difficult time getting any legislation passed. I mean the chances of a Democratic centrist being able to get anything through a Republican senate is very very slim, but the chance of a Democratic progressive doing the same is nil.
golden sloth said:I think this is more of an entertainment piece than a real analysis, but this guy's pitch is pretty dumb, and reeks of the self-righteousness and superiority complex that will get Trump elected to a second term by walking straight into the stereotype the conservatives paint of liberals and not acknowledging that you need to win swing states which have equal numbers of rural hillbillies as there are liberal commie city folk, and the election will be determined by the people that aren't either.okaydo said:
Further, he claims that electing a centrist who tries to pander to a wide swath of the populace will not result in generating change. The problem is that a Progressive will undoubtedly have a more difficult time getting any legislation passed. I mean the chances of a Democratic centrist being able to get anything through a Republican senate is very very slim, but the chance of a Democratic progressive doing the same is nil.
To win, you need to get more people to the polls. You're not going to win trying to woo people who would even entertain the idea of 4 more years of Trump -- and nearly a full decade of him being the No. 1 news story -- after all his bullsh. To get more people to the polls, you have to inspire passion. Trump inspires passion (which is why the GOP sticks with him). Obama inspired passion. Buttigieg inspires less passion than Hillary Clinton.
The problem with your analysis is that is that in 2016 the Democrats nominated the centrist and lost the swing states. In 2008 the Democrats nominated the candidate perceived to be more progressive and won.golden sloth said:I think this is more of an entertainment piece than a real analysis, but this guy's pitch is pretty dumb, and reeks of the self-righteousness and superiority complex that will get Trump elected to a second term by walking straight into the stereotype the conservatives paint of liberals and not acknowledging that you need to win swing states which have equal numbers of rural hillbillies as there are liberal commie city folk, and the election will be determined by the people that aren't either.okaydo said:
Further, he claims that electing a centrist who tries to pander to a wide swath of the populace will not result in generating change. The problem is that a Progressive will undoubtedly have a more difficult time getting any legislation passed. I mean the chances of a Democratic centrist being able to get anything through a Republican senate is very very slim, but the chance of a Democratic progressive doing the same is nil.
One thing I will note is that even the "centrist" candidates in this election hold much further left positions than a "centrist" candidate would have 10 years ago.
Bloomberg is in because we need a return to normalcy
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s
Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.Anarchistbear said:
Bloomberg is in because we need a return to normalcy
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s
Bloomberg is a Russian asset. This is all Putin's doing.
I don't know if it is necessarily a bias towards centrism or a bias towards the status quo, as I feel centrist by nature, want to maintain the status quo. I also believe that mainstream journalist should start their reporting from the perspective of the status quo. Different viewpoints are always welcome and should be discussed with an open mind, but I don't think news should be reported on from the viewpoint of one party's extreme or the other.sycasey said:Yes, this put into words a lot if what I've been thinking lately.okaydo said:
This is a really great article.
Regarding 2008 let's be honest, the economic collapse and the Great Recession handed that election to the Democrats. Obama is my favorite president of my lifetime, and he easily could have won the 2008 election without the economic collapse, but the national mood enabled his rhetoric to speak in lofty, ambitious terms.dajo9 said:The problem with your analysis is that is that in 2016 the Democrats nominated the centrist and lost the swing states. In 2008 the Democrats nominated the candidate perceived to be more progressive and won.golden sloth said:I think this is more of an entertainment piece than a real analysis, but this guy's pitch is pretty dumb, and reeks of the self-righteousness and superiority complex that will get Trump elected to a second term by walking straight into the stereotype the conservatives paint of liberals and not acknowledging that you need to win swing states which have equal numbers of rural hillbillies as there are liberal commie city folk, and the election will be determined by the people that aren't either.okaydo said:
Further, he claims that electing a centrist who tries to pander to a wide swath of the populace will not result in generating change. The problem is that a Progressive will undoubtedly have a more difficult time getting any legislation passed. I mean the chances of a Democratic centrist being able to get anything through a Republican senate is very very slim, but the chance of a Democratic progressive doing the same is nil.
In 2016, there are a whole series of caveats like Russian interference, an opponent unlike any other, and a ton of baggage from the previous 20 years. Still many point to the fact her campaign ignored the same swing votes in key states that I am claiming the Democratic nominee needs to be able to connect with, and not ignore.
As for enthusiasm and passion to motivate voters to vote. I believe Donald Trump is all the motivation people will need to vote. I expect this election to break turnout records for the current era. I don't think Sanders or Warren or Biden or Yang will motivate anyone to vote any more than Donald Trump already has.
golden sloth said:I don't know if it is necessarily a bias towards centrism or a bias towards the status quo, as I feel centrist by nature, want to maintain the status quo. I also believe that mainstream journalist should start their reporting from the perspective of the status quo. Different viewpoints are always welcome and should be discussed with an open mind, but I don't think news should be reported on from the viewpoint of one party's extreme or the other.sycasey said:Yes, this put into words a lot if what I've been thinking lately.okaydo said:
This is a really great article.
Mainstream journalists on tv and major print media are overwhelmingly rich and white. They are not affected by issues of healthcare, homeownership, student debt, retirement affordability. Why would they want anything but the status quo?
The problem with your analysis is Bill Clinton and George McGovern or Michael Dukakis.dajo9 said:The problem with your analysis is that is that in 2016 the Democrats nominated the centrist and lost the swing states. In 2008 the Democrats nominated the candidate perceived to be more progressive and won.golden sloth said:I think this is more of an entertainment piece than a real analysis, but this guy's pitch is pretty dumb, and reeks of the self-righteousness and superiority complex that will get Trump elected to a second term by walking straight into the stereotype the conservatives paint of liberals and not acknowledging that you need to win swing states which have equal numbers of rural hillbillies as there are liberal commie city folk, and the election will be determined by the people that aren't either.okaydo said:
Further, he claims that electing a centrist who tries to pander to a wide swath of the populace will not result in generating change. The problem is that a Progressive will undoubtedly have a more difficult time getting any legislation passed. I mean the chances of a Democratic centrist being able to get anything through a Republican senate is very very slim, but the chance of a Democratic progressive doing the same is nil.
It's not about centrist or progressive. it is about the candidate. Hillary was a bad candidate. In 2008 her campaign failed to identify Obama as the only obvious threat to her nomination (in fact they thought he was a joke) until it was too late, then spent months just being righteously indignant that "again the inexperienced man was getting an advantage over the experienced woman". In 2016 she couldn't beat down a socialist non-Democrat from an irrelevant state. Then she lost to a loud mouth idiot in part because she was busy trying to run up the score in states that didn't matter while ignoring swing states. Dukakis ran a terrible campaign also. Bill and Obama were great candidates with great campaigns.
My feeling is I vote for the candidate I like in the primary since that is my only chance to make a difference. I do not play electability games except to the extent I feel that a candidate runs bad campaigns. I honestly think that if everyone voted for the candidate they like, on average we'd have better, more electable candidates. Anointing either candidate as electable just leads people to not make them earn their vote. If they didn't earn your vote what makes you think they will earn other people's votes in the general.
So, I guess what you are saying to golden sloth is Democrats should elect the progressive if they are a better candidate than the centrist. You make a good argument for Elizabeth Warren there.OaktownBear said:The problem with your analysis is Bill Clinton and George McGovern or Michael Dukakis.dajo9 said:The problem with your analysis is that is that in 2016 the Democrats nominated the centrist and lost the swing states. In 2008 the Democrats nominated the candidate perceived to be more progressive and won.golden sloth said:I think this is more of an entertainment piece than a real analysis, but this guy's pitch is pretty dumb, and reeks of the self-righteousness and superiority complex that will get Trump elected to a second term by walking straight into the stereotype the conservatives paint of liberals and not acknowledging that you need to win swing states which have equal numbers of rural hillbillies as there are liberal commie city folk, and the election will be determined by the people that aren't either.okaydo said:
Further, he claims that electing a centrist who tries to pander to a wide swath of the populace will not result in generating change. The problem is that a Progressive will undoubtedly have a more difficult time getting any legislation passed. I mean the chances of a Democratic centrist being able to get anything through a Republican senate is very very slim, but the chance of a Democratic progressive doing the same is nil.
It's not about centrist or progressive. it is about the candidate. Hillary was a bad candidate. In 2008 her campaign failed to identify Obama as the only obvious threat to her nomination (in fact they thought he was a joke) until it was too late, then spent months just being righteously indignant that "again the inexperienced man was getting an advantage over the experienced woman". In 2016 she couldn't beat down a socialist non-Democrat from an irrelevant state. Then she lost to a loud mouth idiot in part because she was busy trying to run up the score in states that didn't matter while ignoring swing states. Dukakis ran a terrible campaign also. Bill and Obama were great candidates with great campaigns.
My feeling is I vote for the candidate I like in the primary since that is my only chance to make a difference. I do not play electability games except to the extent I feel that a candidate runs bad campaigns. I honestly think that if everyone voted for the candidate they like, on average we'd have better, more electable candidates. Anointing either candidate as electable just leads people to not make them earn their vote. If they didn't earn your vote what makes you think they will earn other people's votes in the general.
dajo9 said:So, I guess what you are saying to golden sloth is Democrats should elect the progressive if they are a better candidate than the centrist. You make a good argument for Elizabeth Warren there.OaktownBear said:The problem with your analysis is Bill Clinton and George McGovern or Michael Dukakis.dajo9 said:The problem with your analysis is that is that in 2016 the Democrats nominated the centrist and lost the swing states. In 2008 the Democrats nominated the candidate perceived to be more progressive and won.golden sloth said:I think this is more of an entertainment piece than a real analysis, but this guy's pitch is pretty dumb, and reeks of the self-righteousness and superiority complex that will get Trump elected to a second term by walking straight into the stereotype the conservatives paint of liberals and not acknowledging that you need to win swing states which have equal numbers of rural hillbillies as there are liberal commie city folk, and the election will be determined by the people that aren't either.okaydo said:
Further, he claims that electing a centrist who tries to pander to a wide swath of the populace will not result in generating change. The problem is that a Progressive will undoubtedly have a more difficult time getting any legislation passed. I mean the chances of a Democratic centrist being able to get anything through a Republican senate is very very slim, but the chance of a Democratic progressive doing the same is nil.
It's not about centrist or progressive. it is about the candidate. Hillary was a bad candidate. In 2008 her campaign failed to identify Obama as the only obvious threat to her nomination (in fact they thought he was a joke) until it was too late, then spent months just being righteously indignant that "again the inexperienced man was getting an advantage over the experienced woman". In 2016 she couldn't beat down a socialist non-Democrat from an irrelevant state. Then she lost to a loud mouth idiot in part because she was busy trying to run up the score in states that didn't matter while ignoring swing states. Dukakis ran a terrible campaign also. Bill and Obama were great candidates with great campaigns.
My feeling is I vote for the candidate I like in the primary since that is my only chance to make a difference. I do not play electability games except to the extent I feel that a candidate runs bad campaigns. I honestly think that if everyone voted for the candidate they like, on average we'd have better, more electable candidates. Anointing either candidate as electable just leads people to not make them earn their vote. If they didn't earn your vote what makes you think they will earn other people's votes in the general.
I made a really good argument for you to vote for her. I made a really good argument for me to vote for every Democrat in America not named Tulsi instead. But I wouldn't vote against her or for her on electability grounds
Q: Which Democratic Candidates are National Security Employees Opening Their Wallets for?
A: Bernie, the Mayor Pete. Bernie more than doubles Trump.
Very interesting results...like government workers want a socialist.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/08/2020-presidential-election-democratic-candidates-national-security-employees-contributions/
A: Bernie, the Mayor Pete. Bernie more than doubles Trump.
Very interesting results...like government workers want a socialist.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/08/2020-presidential-election-democratic-candidates-national-security-employees-contributions/
Another Bear said:
Q: Which Democratic Candidates are National Security Employees Opening Their Wallets for?
A: Bernie, the Mayor Pete. Bernie more than doubles Trump.
Very interesting results...like government workers want a socialist.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/08/2020-presidential-election-democratic-candidates-national-security-employees-contributions/
National security employees, huh. I sense a trend.
1. White man
2. White man
3. White woman
4. White man
5. White man
6. Minority woman
7. Minority man
8. White woman
9. White woman
10. Minority man
bearister said:
What is Rand Paul doing in the photographs that tRump has stored in an encrypted computer file?
1. Rand is seen de furring the family of squirrels he used to re seed his toupee;
2.
No kidding. He went off rails in releasing the name of the whistleblower.
Rush Limbaugh
Trump Jr
Rand Paul
Wrong.
But it doesn't matter if he's a drug addict or murderer or spy or insane. Because others are now telling his story.
Bill Taylor in TV Wednesday at 7am pacific, for starters.
Fiona Hill transcript reading on Maddow was crazy buts hilarious. She's gonna destroy Trump.
Others, too...
Heck, I was about to come over here to suggest you Dems may finally have something going. Went down MB's positions on all sectors, and he sounds electable, maybe even drawing away a number of evil Republicans. Ah, but then even his own party wishes hell upon him. I better just stick with the FB and BB boards. The homogeny of thought here gives one stomach acid.Another Bear said:Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.Anarchistbear said:
Bloomberg is in because we need a return to normalcy
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s
Featured Stories
See All
Nohl Williams Named Consensus All-American
by Cal Athletics
Depleted Bears Fall to #24 UNLV in LA Bowl, 24-13
by Jim McGill
Cal Squares Off With No. 24 UNLV At LA Bowl
by Cal Athletics
Bear Insider Podcast #E102: Cal vs UNLV - LA Bowl Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
The Rodcast: Cal-Stanford Breakdown
by Rod Benson