|
Oh goody. Everyone feeling real inspired? https://news.yahoo.com/poll-reveals-democrats-want-presidential-011524727.html New Poll Reveals Who Democrats Want on the Presidential Ticket in 2024 quote:Biden's presidency has not inspired Democrats to elect him to a second term, the numbers show. By a margin of 23 points, 61% of those polled said they would prefer a new president; 38% said they'd welcome another four years of Biden. How are we so loving BAD at this running against people like Trump, W, Romney and McCain?
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Oh goody. Everyone feeling real inspired? feel like this is another poll that's actually just asking about name recognition, plus Biden 's bad D approval
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:How are we so loving BAD at this running against people like Trump, W, Romney and McCain? Democrats won half of the elections you just mentioned via the electoral college and got a majority of the votes in 5 out of the 6
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
A real murderer’s row of people who would lose worse than Biden will. The bench of candidates is so weak. While we’re at it, what’s Tom Steyer up to?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:I'm legit interested in what made Manchin turn around on the bill and have him come out and ask for more of the things that will actually help people. This is incredibly out of the character he's portrayed for the past two years. Apparently Larry Summers talked to him and convinced him. I'm not even kidding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1553054547970760704 Really wondering if it's worth keeping this stand-off going. Sure, state media + saber rattling + status quo of S.E.A politics but with Ukraine still being at war, China facing economic upheaval, and newly crowed President for Life Xi wanting to put that conquest feather in his cap before he's dead, I'm not thinking it's a good idea to keep provoking this. What was the original reason for her going there anyway? Just vacation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Democrats won half of the elections you just mentioned via the electoral college and got a majority of the votes in 5 out of the 6 I meant nominating candidates that I actually like. Not voting for ones that get me to turn out simply by virtue of not being total monsters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Crain posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1553054547970760704 China knows if they shoot down the third-in-line of US government succession then it will be nuclear war shortly after
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I meant nominating candidates that I actually like. Not voting for ones that get me to turn out simply by virtue of not being total monsters. How about ones that win
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Oh goody. Everyone feeling real inspired? Obama did fine against Romney and McCain? People were mostly excited about him even for his second term?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
Riptor posted:How about ones that win
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
Riptor posted:How about ones that win What about them? I'm generally happy when Republicans lose but that's not really what I was talking about. More suggesting that in the richest country on earth that we can certainly do better than the (basically) two viable candidates on my ballot every 2 to 4 years. I think I was pretty clear about being uninspired by Dem candidates, terrified by Republican ones and thought the implication of my lesser of two evils fatigue was pretty implicit in my post. Are you suggesting that I should be excited and fired up by the likes of Joe Biden or the Clintons by virtue of them winning the popular vote? Or even Barrack Obama? I mean, I voted for Biden (and Hillary for that matter) but I'm not doing any sort of loving victory laps here or bragging about it just because we managed to temporarily get rid of DJT and think that Joe Biden sucks the gently caress out loud. What is your point exactly? Levitate posted:Obama did fine against Romney and McCain? People were mostly excited about him even for his second term? Obama was a bit of an exception and he spoke to my issues in 2008 but, personally, I was far less jazzed about his second term. I'm saying why do we have such horrible people on our ballots and wondering just how low one has to sink to win elections in this country. I'd gladly go back to an Obama administration right now but me wishing the bar was set a little higher than that doesn't seem beyond the pale. Hopefully I clarified my point here BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jul 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Levitate posted:Obama did fine against Romney and McCain? People were mostly excited about him even for his second term? Obama was on track to probably lose to Romney until Hurricane Sandy wiped out NJ and NYC and Obama's response to it and subsequent praise by Christie did a lot to raise his approvals above Romney's in time for the election. That always seemed strange to me, but here's the polling: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2012/10/29/presidential-race-dead-even-romney-maintains-turnout-edge/ https://news.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx Gallupp posted:Current voting preferences mark a return to the status of the race from Oct. 1-7, when Obama and Romney were tied at 48% among likely voters. After that, Romney moved ahead in mid-October during the presidential debate period, holding a three- to five-point lead in Gallup Daily tracking shortly before superstorm Sandy devastated many areas on the East Coast Oct. 29-30. Romney's and Obama's current close positioning in the Nov. 1-4 poll was measured as the Northeast continued to recover from superstorm Sandy, and after Obama's highly visible visit to the region. The 2012 election was on November 6 so without the hurricane, Obama would've probably lost or at best, squeaked out a tiny electoral victory. HonorableTB fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jul 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Obama was on track to probably lose to Romney until Hurricane Sandy wiped out NJ and NYC and Obama's response to it and subsequent praise by Christie did a lot to raise his approvals above Romney's in time for the election. That always seemed strange to me, but here's the polling: Gallup was pretty clear wrong, though. Their final poll the week before the election had Romney winning and he got blown out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Gallup was pretty clear wrong, though. Gallup was in agreement with other pollsters at the time that Romney was up by 3-5%, it was the hurricane specifically that turned it around for Obama because he made a super visible trip to the area and got praised by a Republican. That boosted Obama's approvals a few days before the election and without that, Romney probably wins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Gallup was in agreement with other pollsters at the time that Romney was up by 3-5%, it was the hurricane specifically that turned it around for Obama because he made a super visible trip to the area and got praised by a Republican. That boosted Obama's approvals a few days before the election and without that, Romney probably wins. Gallup's final poll was conducted from Nov 1st through November 4th. Sandy happened a month before that. If they were accurate, then surely they should have picked that up in a poll 2 days before the election and a month after Sandy? Unless the entire surge happened from November 5th through the 6th.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Gallup was in agreement with other pollsters at the time that Romney was up by 3-5%, it was the hurricane specifically that turned it around for Obama because he made a super visible trip to the area and got praised by a Republican. That boosted Obama's approvals a few days before the election and without that, Romney probably wins. I thought most polls had Romney at best tied at worst down by 3? They were way more stable the Clinton/Trump which could swing by the day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I thought most polls had Romney at best tied at worst down by 3? Yeah, it actually looks like it was the opposite of what they were saying. Romney surged and Obama fell in polling around October/Hurricane Sandy. He had been down by 3-5 points for the entire campaign, then seemed to surge in polling at the end, but ended up losing by 4. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Obama was a bit of an exception and he spoke to my issues in 2008 but, personally, I was far less jazzed about his second term. I'm saying why do we have such horrible people on our ballots and wondering just how low one has to sink to win elections in this country. I'd gladly go back to an Obama administration right now but me wishing the bar was set a little higher than that doesn't seem beyond the pale. We get these candidates because people vote for them. Most of the dem voters are still just more conservative than the lefter leaning posters here and are more willing to follow what the anointed Dem candidate is by the DNC (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
Levitate posted:We get these candidates because people vote for them. Most of the dem voters are still just more conservative than the lefter leaning posters here and are more willing to follow what the anointed Dem candidate is by the DNC I don't think the effects of propaganda and having progressive candidates being regularly poo poo on by the monied interests wanting to protect that money can be discounted. Solutions that work, right now, in every other industrialized nation in the world are labeled oogie-boogie scary RADICAL far leftist ideas in this country by the various apparatuses that hate the idea of losing their profits. Anybody trying to campaign on them has to fight that money every step of the way for their very basic political existence, and will eventually get tired before the money does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:I'm legit interested in what made Manchin turn around on the bill and have him come out and ask for more of the things that will actually help people. This is incredibly out of the character he's portrayed for the past two years. This is the best article I've found so far, but there's a lot of stuff is still coming out. Biggest overall takeaway is pretty much a tale as old as time that everyone has always feared: There is no grand conspiracy, or cynical kabuki. There also is no machine crafted system of science driven decision analysis. It's literally just massive civilization-ending decisions hinging on the politics of the personal relationships of a handful of individuals. "The Hill posted:
This AP article also covers some of the same ground and is pretty good: Basement talk, virtual handshake led to Manchin-Schumer deal -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Crain posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1553054547970760704 She's gonna take a page from the Vogon playbook and singlehandedly defeat China by reading terrible poetry at them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
So whether all that maneuvering has been worth it is now dependent on The Senior Senator from the State of Arizona Kyrsten Sinema. I have heartburn again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:This is the best article I've found so far, but there's a lot of stuff is still coming out. Biggest overall takeaway is pretty much a tale as old as time that everyone has always feared: There is no grand conspiracy, or cynical kabuki. There also is no machine crafted system of science driven decision analysis. It's literally just massive civilization-ending decisions hinging on the politics of the personal relationships of a handful of individuals. Thanks for this, and to the others who provided info and their insight as well. Also  Blackadder's Article posted:Cornyn took to the Senate floor Thursday afternoon to rail against the secret climate and tax deal.  big enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Apparently Larry Summers talked to him and convinced him. I'm not even kidding. Reading this gave me a big hearty  edit: a quarterly feedback thread is now open for the weekend: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4008656 GoutPatrol fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I am aware of it, and it is a consolation prize for people who were defeated. None of these former congressmen/former Senators (who didn't retire, anyway) wanted to lose their election. Which election did Paul Ryan lose? Or does it just not count for some arbitrary reason you imagined I will say it's wild that you yourself call it a consolation prize and yet refuse to connect two dots so adjacent that they're practically a single point. She's maneuvered herself into a binary situation in which her failure state in 2024 results in her hopping directly aboard the corporate gravy train and her success state is keeping her seat anyway and still hanging on to her gravy train ticket for later. Neither of these are bad outcomes for her, and the only way you can pretend that there is one is by inventing a standard in your own head and declaring all elected officials monomaniacally adhere to it Rigel posted:edit: I never said ANYTHING about her "failing her way into the Senate", those are your words and assumptions, not mine. I'm just saying, whatever her history may have been, she is needlessly and pointlessly torching her Senate seat. She is someone from a poor background with absolutely zero inherent political connections or institutional backing who rose to become a US Senator by the age of 41, despite being an atheist bisexual woman in a state that last elected a Democrat to the Senate in 1988. She's now one of the highest profile Senators in the country despite still being in her freshman term, and has cultivated a massive personal funding network for herself via acting as a champion of business interests--which again, have thanked her in plain language for tanking BBB on their behalf. She's also got better approval numbers with the Arizona general electorate than Biden does even in spite of all her "torching," and she belongs to a party whose primary voters have overwhelmingly internalized the idea of sacrificing policy in favor of general election appeal to the point they propagated a rhyming slogan to reinforce it. The only thing she actually needs to run on in a future primary is the case that she can win the general and Gallego can't, which is an easy case to make, especially if Kelly loses in the fall. If she wins both her primary and the general, she also positions herself as a powerful figure that can push the party around and cannot be disciplined, creating a firm foundation to climb even higher. There's every reason to assume she knows what she's doing, as long as you don't immediately assume she's a dumb bimbo who ended up where she is by accident and actually think about her actions in relation to the US political, economic, and media structures I guess she's just not as smart as Something Awful forums poster Rigel, though. You really should just go primary her, dude. You'd run intellectual circles around that broad. Imagine Senator Rigel, giving speeches about absolutely nothing on the Senate floor, doing press conferences where you could own every uppity reporter by saying "there's no need for me to explain, everyone knows that" or "this happened because the people wanted it, because we live in a democracy, and in a democracy what happens is what the people want because it's a democracy" Rigel posted:Well yeah, even smart people can do very stupid things for stupid reasons at least occasionally. I don't know how intelligent she is or isn't, but in this specific situation, she made some very stupid decisions if re-election is a high priority. And you have to assume it is for a relatively young one-term Senator. Oh word? Is that why you said: Rigel posted:You are trying to find a rational, logical explanation for her votes, and this is a fun one, but I don't think there is a good reason, she's just that stupid and/or nuts. Rigel posted:She's either an idiot, or she actually knows something we don't about how to be re-elected in Arizona and the rest of us are all idiots. Rigel posted:she appears to be nuts. because you sound pretty loving sure that she's stupid and/or crazy--in fact, you're so convinced of it you have been aggressively resisting any attempt to even consider scenarios in which she might not be. I suppose that's a necessary battle, though, to cling to the shallow fairytale understanding of the US system that you frequently espouse here, which is at its most charitable the equivalent of going into a conversation where people try to work out the arrangement and function of the parts of a human face and insisting that actually there's no such thing as noses because the smiley face you drew in crayon doesn't have one You can at least not straight up contradict yourself, though. I get that you don't want to actually think about any of this stuff so much as just vacantly repeat boilerplate Democrat messaging and have other people nod along and tell you what a smart boy you are, but please at least try to remember your own posts across a 24-hour period while you're desperately dodging a single moment of reflection. It's not a huge ask
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I am aware of it, and it is a consolation prize for people who were defeated. None of these former congressmen/former Senators (who didn't retire, anyway) wanted to lose their election. your unwillingness to contemplate a possibility does not constitute an argument against that possibility, Rigel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
I promise that Senators can be both crazy and/or stupid, even if many aren't. I have not interacted with Sinema so I can't really evaluate her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I promise that Senators can be both crazy and/or stupid, even if many aren't. I have not interacted with Sinema so I can't really evaluate her. Who are the nuttiest and stupidest senators, respectively?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Who are the nuttiest and stupidest senators, respectively? In the modern era? No clue, I've only interacted directly or indirectly with a handful- though as one would expect, fringe conservatives from rural states seem to stand out on both counts. I know there were some real nutjobs back in the day; some of them were covered in the tragically lost Presidents Thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Who are the nuttiest and stupidest senators, respectively? they can also swap titles, to be honest
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
People can also be both stupid and brilliant because intelligence is not real.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:People can also be both stupid and brilliant because intelligence is not real. Just extremely subject specific. I've had some very smart people say some extremely dumb things to me before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:People can also be both stupid and brilliant because intelligence is not real. This, plus there’s a hell of a selection bias for the kind of personality who would excel enough in American politics to become a Senator. 100 of the most deranged, vacuous freaks this country has ever churned out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I promise that Senators can be both crazy and/or stupid, even if many aren't. I have not interacted with Sinema so I can't really evaluate her. it is entirely possible, but even the nuttiest and/or stupidest senators can be pretty trusted to act in what they consider to be their (or their staffers', in Feinstein's case) best interests. that their best interests and ours do not even remotely align tends to lead to people making very embarrassing assertions that oh, they're just being ~crazy~ to explain away actions that seem counter to the goals of the political party and/or you personally. for example, there was this Senator named Joe Biden whose reaction to being asked to interrogate a Republican Supreme Court nominee's history of sexual abuse was to attack the victim repeatedly in public, and then refuse to bring on any of the supporting witnesses he knew existed. from our perspective here and now, one could absolutely make the argument this was just Joe Biden being a stupid, crazy idiot who didn't realize the importance of a supreme court nomination. but if we allow that Joe Biden, rather than just being so dumb and goddamn crazy, was someone capable of acting in his own best interests, we might understand that a supreme court nomination is something that will only hurt other people, while a precedent of sexual assault being a dealbreaker for political advancement is something that hurts him personally. and as such, we can explain his decision to act as Anita Hill's prosecutor rather than champion with something far more reasonable than "Joe Biden just woke up and decided to be an enormous rear end in a top hat that day." the So Dumb And Goddamned Crazy cinematic universe offers an unfalsifiable way to explain away any time the system produces an outcome you don't like. this is not unheard of among political fanfictions; most of them are concerned with justifying an existing horror in a way that can't be disproven. uniquely among its breed, though, it offers nothing else. for all the manifold faults of the QAnon people, at least they have a theoretical endgame: once all the satanic pedophiles are dispatched by Trump and/or JFK Jr happy days will be here again. Spontaneous rear end in a top hat Theory assumes there is nothing that can be done to avert this- periodically people you respect are just going to betray you for no apparent reason, and the only sensible thing to do in response is shrug and hope it doesn't happen again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:People can also be both stupid and brilliant because intelligence is not real.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Which election did Paul Ryan lose? Or does it just not count for some arbitrary reason you imagined For Vice President in 2012?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
Thank you. On a related note, for anyone wondering, the tallest senator in history was one Luther Strange of Alabama (2017-2018) standing 6 foot 9. Varying sources describe Fetterman as either 6”9’ or 6”8’ so it’s unclear if he will end up the tallest. Mr Pence admiring High Strange:  According to the Huffington Post, the smartest senator is Amy Klobuchar. Here she is early in her journey to the heights of intellectual stature:  I’m having a hard time finding the shortest senator but I think the shortest male senator might be Lindsey Graham, who is 5”7’.  I wasn’t able to find any senators who don’t have college degrees but apparently 17 congresspeople don’t.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:14
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:For Vice President in 2012? Oh did that cost him his House seat
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:...this is not unheard of among political fanfictions... Good god - it's *fanfiction* not *fanfictions*. =P Okay, jokes aside, I agree. People generally have some reason for what they do, even if it doesn't make sense to outside observers. It's not always a *good* reason, but *a* reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:21
|
|
