|
This is the great screengrab of our 46th (or 47th+, depending on how the impeachments shake out) president, 3 years before he takes office: e: dog! 
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:A cardboard cutout is neck-and-neck in GA-06 right now. You're underestimating how much people want to vote against Republicans at the moment. At the moment. This anger is not going to sustain itself for another 1.5 years, let alone up until 2020.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:26
|
|
skylined! posted:link? from a person tasked with implementing this law at the operations level, this sounds like bullshit. Shifty Pony posted:Was it this one?. In that one the offending muffin was one that is pretty much omnipresent in bodegas around NYC. Consistency of the counts is a pretty big issue at restaurants but oddly enough the major fast food franchises tend to be the best and most accurate because their foods have the ingredient amounts controlled down to tenths of an oz because any extra mayo/flour/meat means less profit for them.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I don't think that would be funny. The only thing that would be funny about Trump in 2020 is if he went out to do his concession speech and Bud Dwyer's, but first sprays his own crowd. That would be hilarious. In a perfect world derived from this turbofucked timeline, Republicans would develop a sense of guilt and town halls would eventually provide plastic sheets for the audience to shield themselves from the splatter ala Gallagher.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Again this piece is fatally flawed because bomb calorimetry is not a measure of the calories your body gains processing said food.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:This is the most likely scenario, with the Democrats also losing ground in the Senate. I also don't have the optimism some have about 2020. Whoever the Democrats run in 2020 will be a candidate that likely only excites one wing of the party, and they are going to run on a platform of increasing taxes, increasing regulation, and taking a more conciliatory tone when dealing with the rest of the world. I think we are in for one party rule until 2022 at the earliest. I am more hopeful about 2018 than I thought I would be. The Republicans planned to force all of the vulnerable D senators into a series of hard votes by forcing them to choose between supporting Trump (like their constituents did) or opposing him (like most of their base did). They've failed miserably and given them immense ammunition with the AHCA and Trump's repeated betrayal of his various promises that were popular in those states like higher taxes on the rich, infrastructure spending, etc. They have not and likely will not be forced to choose between opposing Trump and opposing things their constituents like, and in an environment that has a reasonable shot of being the same sort of democratic wave that put them into office in the first place. I think they've all got a reasonably good shot of winning re-election, and I think Heller is basically a dead man walking and Flake is vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I'm sure he'd be stopped but I'm not entirely sure that after a year or two of this mess we are in that he wouldn't at least try. But he'll probably die in office in 2018 or 2019 thinking he saved America, because we live in a petty universe ruled by malevolent gods.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:At the moment. This anger is not going to sustain itself for another 1.5 years, let alone up until 2020. Why? The anger is actively sustained by liberal activists and a rich mine of horrors provided weekly by the conservative apparatus. Republicans kept this up for eight years with far less to go on.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Easy Salmon Recipe posted:It boggles my mind that people keep saying "There's no legal mechanism for them do this!"...No offense, but I kinda want to see one of you get mugged. " You're confusing "if they overtly try, it will end the Union" with "everything is gonna be alright, rockabye, rockabye" IMO
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:30
|
|
Excuse me, but there is no legal means by which you can take my money, so I'm afraid I'll have to decline and go about my b--*sounds of stabbing* UM THIS IS CLEARLY NOT SELF DEFENSE ARE YOU AWARE YOUR ACTIONS ARE ILLEGAL????"
|
TyrantWD posted:At the moment. This anger is not going to sustain itself for another 1.5 years, let alone up until 2020. the republicans are going to stop passing terrible health care bills and cutting taxes on the rich, and trump is going to become sane? good to know
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Why? The anger is actively sustained by liberal activists and a rich mine of horrors provided weekly by the conservative apparatus. Republicans kept this up for eight years with far less to go on. Why didn't this show more results in Montana and Kansas then? We aren't seeing the massive spike to D turnout that we should be seeing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:You're confusing "if they overtly try, it will end the Union" with "everything is gonna be alright, rockabye, rockabye" IMO They don't give a poo poo about the union. Never have, never will. It's not like Steve Bannon was an aberration, the entire GOP basically wants a new country where they get to be Priest Kings, and they don't really seem to care if they rule a functioning country or a blighted hellscape.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why didn't this show more results in Montana and Kansas then? We aren't seeing the massive spike to D turnout that we should be seeing. I thought the problem in Kansas was that it was actually closish but the DNC didn't really give a poo poo about it while the Republicans saturated the airwaves with their messaging.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why didn't this show more results in Montana and Kansas then? We aren't seeing the massive spike to D turnout that we should be seeing. You're right. A +20 some odd shift in deep red districts is meaningless since the Democrat lost by about 4 points instead of 25.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why didn't this show more results in Montana and Kansas then? We aren't seeing the massive spike to D turnout that we should be seeing. 15 point swing from montana is a huge spike It wasn't enough there but many, many seats have a much smaller margin.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why didn't this show more results in Montana and Kansas then? We aren't seeing the massive spike to D turnout that we should be seeing. Wasn't there something like a 15 point swing in Montana?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NivenJ1/status/869547606942371840 https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/869225668663541760 Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 16:39 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why didn't this show more results in Montana and Kansas then? We aren't seeing the massive spike to D turnout that we should be seeing. Those were deep, dark red hellholes that should not have been close. If the country is in a state where we win those two seats, we easily have a veto-proof majority in most elections.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Wasn't there something like a 15 point swing in Montana? Yeah it broke the guys glasses
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Easy Salmon Recipe posted:They don't give a poo poo about the union. Never have, never will. It's not like Steve Bannon was an aberration, the entire GOP basically wants a new country where they get to be Priest Kings, and they don't really seem to care if they rule a functioning country or a blighted hellscape. Right, so people are saying if they try to suspend the Constitution, it will be actual war. And I don't think everyone fighting it would be pro-Constitution suspension. But that's not that big a deal because if we actually go to war we're all dead.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why didn't this show more results in Montana and Kansas then? We aren't seeing the massive spike to D turnout that we should be seeing. Montana is debatable since you can compare to either the governor election, the previous House election, or the Presidential election. Kansas is not debatable and it had a massive D spike: the whole fuss over Kansas was if the Democrats could have exploited that spike more to put the guy over the top in one of the most conservative districts in the country.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
To white knight mcmagic for a sec (wtf is wrong with me), what ended up shaking out in MT/KS? More Dem voters, less repub voters, more crossovers? Can't look it up at work right now
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
This is so wrong though, the whole point of a bomb calorimeter is that it'll just burn anything that burns, you could put gasoline and wood chips and an old shirt in one and it'd find thousands of calories. The use of one is just one step in determining the food calories in something. You need to do other lab tests to figure out what in the food is actually food and what is indigestible material that just burns. Like of course a high fiber muffin has a ton of "extra" calories, that is literally the definition of fiber.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Radish posted:I thought the problem in Kansas was that it was actually closish but the DNC didn't really give a poo poo about it while the Republicans saturated the airwaves with their messaging. This happened in Montana as well. While the Democratic challenger spent more with the individual campaign, Super PAC groups spent a ton of money on the Republican candidate. Overall Republicans spent more on the race in Montana.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
I joined a band a few years back and they gave me access to their facebook page. Turned out most of their followers looked just like that list. I quit not long after.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:I think I might've read that same article. There's a difference here though. Most of the grifting wasn't candidates in the case of the tea party either, it was all manner of outside groups.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:Yeah it broke the guys glasses Kudos.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Those were deep, dark red hellholes that should not have been close. If the country is in a state where we win those two seats, we easily have a veto-proof majority in most elections. We win those seats of 80% of the registered Dems in those districts had voted. They didn't.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:To white knight mcmagic for a sec (wtf is wrong with me), what ended up shaking out in MT/KS? More Dem voters, less repub voters, more crossovers? Can't look it up at work right now White college educated republicans/independents are not turning out or voting D. The Republican base is depressed by a few percentage points.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why didn't this show more results in Montana and Kansas then? We aren't seeing the massive spike to D turnout that we should be seeing. I think they did. Both of those states gave Trump a 20 point win over Clinton. A few months later, the Republicans campaigning in his name manage to eke out 7 point wins over their Democratic opponents. And while there is plenty to quibble over about the relative strength of the candidates in question, the truth is that if we saw 13 pt swings across the nation then it would be a blue revolution
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:We win those seats of 80% of the registered Dems in those districts had voted. They didn't. If you're waiting for 80% turnout you're going to be waiting a long-rear end time. Democrats don't need that level of turnout.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:We win those seats of 80% of the registered Dems in those districts had voted. They didn't. Please post content or go away.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
If we don't win GA-06, then I'll be pessimistic of a Dem wave, because I can't reconcile a prediction of a 2018 Dem wave with not winning that special election.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:We win those seats of 80% of the registered Dems in those districts had voted. They didn't. You are disappointed that we didn't have 80% turnout?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/reihan/status/869568927231291392 https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/869573828044890116 https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/869565988403990528 https://twitter.com/hunterw/status/869578360787259394 https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/869574224532385792 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/869576454434156544 https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/869574540699082753 Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 16:47 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you're waiting for 80% turnout you're going to be waiting a long-rear end time. Democrats don't need that level of turnout. That is what we need to get the kind of defeat of Trumpism we're talking about though... I'm talking turnout among registered voters, not eligible voters.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If we don't win GA-06, then I'll be pessimistic of a Dem wave, because I can't reconcile a prediction of a 2018 Dem wave with not winning that special election. Yeah, I agree with this. Every previous election has been a deep-red hellhole that coming close is "good enough". This is a district that, while very red for a while, is precisely the sort of district they need to be able to flip because it only barely went for Trump and is populated with the sort of Republicans most likely to defect from Trump. Close is not good enough in GA-06.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That is what we need to get the kind of defeat of Trumpism we're talking about though... I'm talking turnout among registered voters, not eligible voters. This is not even remotely reasonable. Obama didn't break 60% turnout in 2008.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This is not even remotely reasonable. Obama didn't break 60% turnout in 2008. Turnout of Registered Democrats in 2008 was higher than 60%.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Turnout of Registered Democrats in 2008 was higher than 60%. So, 65% maybe? No way in hell it was over 80%
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 16:48
|
|