|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:La grandiosa abuela has a plan to save us from all the Shkrelis and the Mylans: that is legitimately cool and good
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:La grandiosa abuela has a plan to save us from all the Shkrelis and the Mylans: Maybe they would if it was in a leaked email.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Maybe they would if it was in a leaked email. "Newly discovered email reveals shocking plan to disrupt US economy"
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Yeah, McCain openly predicting a Clinton victory was a message to voters alienated by Trump who are thinking of staying home in November and who need to be motivated to go in and vote a split ticket. Many conservatives who are disgusted by Trump still fear a Clinton presidency so I think we'll see similar strategies used by Republicans in other states. It's a delicate thing to publicly moot a Trump loss without angering Trumpists who would look at it as a betrayal, particularly when Dems point it out, although not as bad as disendorsement and it is coming after the primary so who else are they going to vote for? The problem is, unlike 1996 where it was becoming obvious that the Republicans wouldn't win the presidential and they cut off Dole, who accepted his fate. Trump won't go down without taking the GOP with him. AMorePerfctGoonion posted:La grandiosa abuela has a plan to save us from all the Shkrelis and the Mylans: She can give a speech about it, and Kellyanne Conway will still  about it saying "SHE'S NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES". Her entire mental health speech went ignored because Trump being a dickhead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
iospace posted:The problem is, unlike 1996 where it was becoming obvious that the Republicans wouldn't win the presidential and they cut off Dole, who accepted his fate. Trump won't go down without taking the GOP with him. Trump supporters are already prepping the "stabbed in the back" narrative because the RNC didn't immediately give cheetoman everything ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Trump supporters are already prepping the "stabbed in the back" narrative because the RNC didn't immediately give cheetoman everything ever.  This is what Trump supporters actually believe. hm oops I misread and thought this was a diff thread, but whatever.  I fall upon my sword bring it.
Yinlock has issued a correction as of 04:22 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:
Welcome to the second safest toxx in cspams history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Welcome to the second safest toxx in cspams history. dare I ask what could possibly be safer
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Clinton email indictment thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
The Canadian one if you listened to me and toxxed trudeau
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
speaking of hillrod, whatever happened to hillaryis44? are they still around?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Yup. And they are now incredibly pro trump
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Clinton email indictment thread. lol people still toxxed for an indictment despite that I have massive respect for those who did because they put their money where their mouth is
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Yup. And they are now incredibly pro trump how
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:lol people still toxxed for an indictment Any Day Now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Yup. And they are now incredibly pro trump lmfao
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:speaking of hillrod, whatever happened to hillaryis44? are they still around? Yes and they support Trump, because of course they do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
They were always an ugly and angry group of people and Trump's ability to tap into that overshadows whatever reasons they had for backing Hill
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Racist dixiecrats are going to racist, especially when she's viewed as Obama's third term.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Honestly the only concern I have is that it won't be a mega GOP backbreaking landslide but just an obama 12 landslide
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
I have 50 dollars riding on a bet with a buddy of mine that Hillary wins by a 10 point margin in the popular vote. For what it's worth a few weeks ago he was asking me whether we would count DJT dropping out as a win for me. Still lots of time for the race to widen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
zoux posted:Honestly the only concern I have is that it won't be a mega GOP backbreaking landslide but just an obama 12 landslide It's a pipe dream, but the only way that I'm going to feel comfortable is with Democrats running the table in competitive races in the Senate and picking up 20-30 seats in the House. That'll give them good odds of keeping the Senate in 2018, put them in a good position for 2020 to pad their lead, and a fighting chance to reverse some of the damage done in the 2010 redistricting when the 2020 House elections roll around. I do agree with The Ninth Layer, there's plenty of time for the race to widen, and I think that it will, it's just those down-ballot races that worry me the most.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:The more I think on it, the more I don't consider Hillary's margin of victory to be as important as how Democrats perform in down-ballot races. Granted, I'd like to see her beat Trump at least as badly as McCain or Dukakis got beat, but if she wins by 10 and the Democrats only end up 50-50 or 51-49 in the senate and pickup maybe 10 seats in the House, it'll be really easy for Republicans to write off her victory margin and even her victory itself as a consequence of Trump's uniquely horrible candidacy. Then, when Republicans inevitably retake the Senate and reverse the House gains in 2018, we'll be stuck in the same poo poo we are now. The thing is, even a 50-50 house combined with a Clinton win means she at least will replace Scalia, provided Garland doesn't approved first. And I can totally see RGB and a couple of the other liberal justices retiring in that time frame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Yeah my big concern is the downballot races, since the senators up for reelection now are the same ones at in 2010 with the OG tea party movement. Although in my state & district, both of the candidates are team blue, with the choice being between a blue dog or somebody who's actually progressive. Jungle primaries are weird.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
yeah, thankfully our tea partier (Ron Johnson) is getting pretty solidly kicked to the curb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
My state has zero chance of anything blue but I'll be damned if I don't try. Seriously gently caress my rep he's a fuckwad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
iospace posted:The thing is, even a 50-50 house combined with a Clinton win means she at least will replace Scalia, provided Garland doesn't approved first. Agreed, I'll be happy with a Senate majority after the election, even one that is 50-50 with Kaine as the tiebreaker, but getting whoever replaces Scalia confirmed is really only a third of the battle. In order to ensure a five justice liberal majority for the first time since the 60s, she needs to get two more justices beyond Scalia's replacement confirmed. Rather than rewrite, I'll just quote part of something I wrote earlier in this thread: Azathoth posted:<snip> But that would still only be four (relatively) young, liberal justices. Breyer has openly said he doesn't care who appoints his replacement and that politics shouldn't factor into it, and the rumor is that Kennedy doesn't want to step down during the term of any president who would appoint a justice not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. The inevitable march of time may force one of both of their hands, but without a Senate majority from 2018-2020, Clinton could be all but assured that any vacancies from 2019-2020 would go unfilled, since Republicans paid basically no price for holding up Garland's nomination and there's no reason to think that they wouldn't do the exact same thing over again if the opportunity presented itself. A durable liberal majority on the Supreme Court is by no means guaranteed even if Hillary wins and the Democrats control the Senate. It becomes far more likely, however, if they can keep control of the Senate after the 2018 midterms, which basically hinges on doing well in this election, since Republicans are all but guaranteed to make up ground in the 2018 midterms, when a bunch of senators that got swept in with the 2008 wave come up for reelection. Azathoth has issued a correction as of 21:53 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
i'm rewatching thirteen days and i'm trying to imagine what that would be like with trump as president and that thought is goddamn terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:The more I think on it, the more I don't consider Hillary's margin of victory to be as important as how Democrats perform in down-ballot races. Granted, I'd like to see her beat Trump at least as badly as McCain or Dukakis got beat, but if she wins by 10 and the Democrats only end up 50-50 or 51-49 in the senate and pickup maybe 10 seats in the House, it'll be really easy for Republicans to write off her victory margin and even her victory itself as a consequence of Trump's uniquely horrible candidacy. Then, when Republicans inevitably retake the Senate and reverse the House gains in 2018, we'll be stuck in the same poo poo we are now. Hillary's margin of victory is going to be closely tied with the down ballot though. Personally I'm of the opinion that she's going to be closing in on some old school asswhoopin numbers come November. But if she does only win by 5% or so, that isn't going to be good news for the down ballot. The only way a narrow win works out is if Trump really, super, unprecedentedly runs up the numbers in the super safe red states while Hillary kills the current swing and blue states. Of course, considering the population disparity, that's going to be real hard unless Texas goes even redder than for Romney. In the Senate there are basically 7 to 12 "possible" pick ups for the Democrats and the defense of Nevada. 3 of those are all but certain to flip Democrat(Duckworth, Bayh, and Feingold are going to win their races regardless). If she does crush it in the popular vote that probably gives the Democrats 7 or 8 pick ups. Historic numbers of crushing it could give you everyone up to Iowa's Grassley. The House is of course anyone's guess as to what is actually needed to flip that poo poo due to incumbency, gerrymandering, and natural population distribution. Important factors that are going to determine the final margin are demographics, ground game, popular perception of the race's outcome, and the success of Hillary's narrative. Given Trump's abysmal demographic approval numbers and his utter lack of a ground game, I'm really bullish on a total shellacking. Especially since the RNC is wasting money propping up Trump and all he does is find new ways to piss of non-white older male demographics. My prognostication is that the ground game deficit results in the equivalent of adding 5% to Hillary's current poll numbers. Demographics are good for another 3%(possibly more depending on turnout of the more likely to be under represented in polls Democratic groups). If she continues to lead Trump by large enough margins to make her election look all but inevitable that's another 3% in depressed Republican turnout. Trump continues looking like a total buffoon while Hillary clowns all over him at the debates and gets her narrative that he's a hateful loon to be the completely accepted narrative(which is already close to happening) and that's another 2%. If it all works out that's 14 points above her current average, putting her at 60%. If she can actually get in the neighborhood of 60% the Republicans are turbo hosed and all the down ballot dreams of Democrats are very likely to come true. Edit: Other things that are helping my good vibes pipe dreams are that 3rd party support is very likely to collapse, and most of it is likely to go to Hillary. Additionally each day closer to the election gets people thinking about the race more closely, and actually thinking about Trump as the President in a serious manner is super not good for your chances of voting Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Edit: Other things that are helping my good vibes pipe dreams are that 3rd party support is very likely to collapse, and most of it is likely to go to Hillary. Additionally each day closer to the election gets people thinking about the race more closely, and actually thinking about Trump as the President in a serious manner is super not good for your chances of voting Trump. Third parties tend to poll better than actual results. Johnson polled 5.1% in a 796 LV poll in November (done by CNN, so reputable), and ended up with 1% of the PV. Ross Perot is pretty much the exception, not the rule in modern times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
iospace posted:The thing is, even a 50-50 house combined with a Clinton win means she at least will replace Scalia, provided Garland doesn't approved first. I never took much notice of him before but Scalia being so incredibly toxic that his mere absence is seeing the rumblings of actual progression even without a replacement is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:I never took much notice of him before but Scalia being so incredibly toxic that his mere absence is seeing the rumblings of actual progression even without a replacement is amazing. Even nature herself cried out in joy when scalia died.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:My state has zero chance of anything blue but I'll be damned if I don't try. Seriously gently caress my rep he's a fuckwad. My state has two blue senators, neither of whom face an election this year. As for the House...well, my district isn't going blue unless Donald Trump calls for literal genocide during the debates. (So, 10% chance, let's say.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Even nature herself cried out in joy when scalia died. I honestly think that was the sunniest day I've seen all year. And it was on my birthday
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:I honestly think that was the sunniest day I've seen all year. And it was on my birthday Nice. My birthday is election day so I'm hoping for an equally good gift 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Yo this place has a cool background also, (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
I've never been here before, and i'll likely never come her again. I'm with her though
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:I've never been here before, and i'll likely never come her again. I'm with her though Post here all you want. We welcome posts adoring the Grand Abuela.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Ban me if Trump wins please oh, and please put a funny quote on my rap sheet like what happened with the Romney 2012 toxx thread. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
I'm disturbed by the narrowing of Clinton's lead, and have to admit I've been avoiding the election lately so I don't  . However, I believe there are several factors that polls are not accounting for that favor Trump. I still think that there is going to be a Clinton landslide and that it will come out of nowhere and surprise the pollsters. Firstly, there may be underage supporters who may be falsely responding to phone and internet polls and are responsible Trump's disproportionate support on social media. Trump seems to appeal to the immature - both figurative and literally - particularly those with daddy issues. Just look at the_donald, the single largest online community of Trump supporters, with up to 6000 exchanging their deep thoughts about Trump ("WORSHIP THE GOD EMPEROR") at any one time. If you look at the posts (as briefly as possible or you could inflict permanent damage to your frontal cortex) you will notice that it is full of shitposts and That Stupid loving Frog. I suspect most of these supporters are Trumplings of the 14 and under "little poo poo" demographic whom are of no value, electorally or, for that matter, otherwise. Secondly, even if you support Trump you must admit that Trump represents uncertainty and risk. If you have nothing to lose, like Trump's white trash base, this is fine. Hey, the price of crystal meth might even fall as America crashes and burns. Unfortunately for Trump most people have a lot to lose and they also have their children and grandchildren's prospects to consider. Notice how la Abuela has focused on children in several of her advertisements? Children makes us think about the future and hence what Trump might do to this country. Just like Trump uses the fear of Death as his leitmotif to bring out the worst in his supporters, who think about the present with fear and an imagined past rather than the future. When you finally pull the lever to vote for a candidate you are locking in your answer come hell or whitewater. You are now responsible for that candidate's actions might they win, even if that responsibility is shared among millions, a little of that burden now rests upon your slumped shoulders. Usually this doesn't matter because everyone knows that the candidates are likely to do what they say they are going to do. Democrats will help out the small guy, Republicans will take a great big dump on him. But Trump is unusual because he has no fixed policies, no moral convictions and seems uninterested in anything that happens after November 8. Even 66% of his supporters don't think he will follow through with the centrepiece of his campaign - we know he wants to win, but beyond that he is a black box. (Personally I think he is going to become a Putanista strongman, elevate his friends and family to oligarchs and otherwise run all of this poo poo we call America straight into the loving ground.) I believe many people who have no problem with telling a pollster now that they support Trump are motivated by the habit of supporting a republican candidate and/or the current visibility of the Clinton scandals in the media. When the time comes to actually vote they may have second thoughts about letting Trump go ahead and stomp illegal immigrants into little pieces wearing the leftover mechanized armour from avatar. Hey, it's as likely to happen as the wall. Thirdly, we have many people supporting third party candidates because they are hoping for a snowball effect that will make their candidate viable by November 8, but when the time comes to vote, many of these people may realize that they are throwing their vote away in one of the most important elections of our lives and may turn their nose up and reluctantly vote for one of the two viable candidates. Who will they choose? Trump's campaign is a turbocharged, overclocked scandal generator running at critical temperature, operated by a deranged crew of death cultists whereas la Abuela has two scandals. Two scandals that the media have wrung every last drop of blood from. Trump is the black hole of uncertainty whereas Clinton is essentially Obama's third term. I think we all know who they will choose. ...at least this is what I'm telling myself so i don't jump out the nearest window. Sorry for the mindbarf.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:29
|
|