|
"Conservative users on Twitter" kind of sums up this entire ado over nothing inasmuch as it describes some angry randos out of 330 million Americans. eta: Found this list of successful boycotts as of Feb. 2023 before the A/B to-do a couple months later, although it's not confined to American boycotts. etaa: BougieBitch posted:I usually side with Leon over Willa on these sort of nitpicky things but the response that was like "oh, no boycott, huh? Then how do you explain THIS TWEET" (from the peanut gallery, not Leon) was just so weak and aggressive that I felt the need to respond. I don't really think either Leon or Willa are wrong in this case - it's fair to say that there's some minimum level of notability before you can really call something a boycott and reasonable people can disagree about that threshold. 
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jul 12, 2023 |
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
People not getting mad about gay couples is part why the greater griftopia target shifted anyway. It's all about chasing the hate-clicks So that alone accounts for the failed attempt to boycott
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Polling is complete garbage nowadays. I'm sure the statisticians at polling outfits are aware how bad a lot of their results are, but their jobs depend on presenting their results as non-garbage. Political aide, campaign workers, and media would also be naturally invested in pretending that polls are more useful than they are. Eh, I think people previously overestimated the accuracy of polling and now underestimate the accuracy of polling. Even in the most notable failure of polling (2016 POTUS), polls were only off by a few %. Being able to know how voters will act within a few % is insanely valuable and polling will never die. You might see a decrease in public results though as it loses its engagement in media but campaigns and politicians themselves will always use polling internally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Here's a more detailed article about it. Cottonelle responded and Fox News covered it several days in a row. This article doesn't say anything about how it was covered that the first one didn't - I only see the Twitter posts. If it was covered by Fox for several days, can you maybe link the clips or at least tell us which program the coverage was on or something? Edit: to channel DV a bit, the sources we are looking at aren't exactly solid reporting. They both are nearly identical, the added length is mostly just putting sentences around the quotes instead of just embedding tweets. It kind of feels like one might have literally been posted in response to the other. They don't even have any quotes from "social media experts" or "gay rights advocates" or anything that would require even a modicum of effort to verify, and there are 0 real names in the body of the article, so we have no evidence that any real people said these things. If the NYT was to write an equivalent article, they would contact the tweeters and get their real names and ask for more info about why they care, and then interview gay consumers to see if they were more likely to buy the brand as a result, and then get something from a nonprofit about the behavior and how it matches or defies societal trends. Basically, it feels ridiculous that someone would use social media posts as the entirety of the content of an article with no other sourcing. It isn't meaningfully better than copy-pasting comments from a local Facebook group and claiming that it represents some larger trend. Like, just to be totally clear here, the two tweets embedded in the first link have 28 and 7 likes and no retweets, and the screenshot of the third one (which is in both articles but isn't loading right in the first one) has 5 likes and 2 retweets at the time the article went up. At that point, you are literally doing more to signal boost and support a boycott by posting the article than any of the people you are quoting in it. It may as well be a Cottonelle ad, since it is basically daring the LGBTQ community to "fight back" against these random nobodies BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jul 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Yeah, most boycotts fizzle out at the yelling at clouds stage. Like I was glancing at an old images folder and remembered when early last year right wingers were trying to get a McDonalds boycott trending ....because the Ronald McDonald House in Vancouver was evicting the parents of a 4 year old with leukemia ... because they refused to get vaccinated. Then you get the ones that fizzle while getting to the next stage of some mainstream coverage and signon but not penetrating the general culture, like say, the Hogwarts Legacy one last year. Or the ones that fail due to institutional pushback like say, BDS or by possibly by trying to be too all-encompassing like every attempted Nestle one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Also, BB, funny you should mention Chick-fil-A bc now the right is attempting a boycott:quote:DEI, short for diversity, equity, and inclusion, is the latest three-letter term to become a target of the right. This will come as a welcome relief to all the goons who admitted loving CFA's food when we discussed it before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
The boycott discussion in general is good but do we have to keep talking about this Cottonelle thing? Because at this point I feel like the argument is more “how much of a Liar is Leon” than “was Cottonelle boycotted.”koolkal posted:Eh, I think people previously overestimated the accuracy of polling and now underestimate the accuracy of polling. Not that non binary folks are going to be a major force in the Republican primary anyway. E: removed stuff that was hypocritically about the thing I requested we drop (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jul 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The boycott discussion in general is good but do we have to keep talking about this Cottonelle thing? Because at this point I feel like the argument is more “how much of a Liar is Leon” than “was Cottonelle boycotted.” Leon replied to the replies to reiterate his point that he still thinks Cottonelle is a pertinent example to counter the argument "Bud Light is easy to boycott because the alternative is 1 foot away on the shelf", so it's still a live point in the overall discussion of "why is Bud Light different". If he wants to drop it he can, but he didn't, so it feels a bit silly for you to be defending his honor when he can do it himself. If he now agrees that the amount of media coverage and figurehead support was substantially different, then we can look for other relatively recent examples from the big list that Willa posted or any other product-rather-than-business that people happen to recall to determine if we think the explanation is sufficient or if there might be other trends to analyze here Edit: InsertPotPun posted:so it was less "i don't see anything about a boycott" and more "i don't see anything about an organized boycott lead by a sufficiently influential person or entity" This is more what my reply was to in the first place - of course we mean an "organized boycott", that's a redundant phrase. Here is the M-W definition of boycott: "to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions" If you don't coordinate it, and you aren't expressing your disapproval or demands as a group, then it isn't a boycott. If the tag actually trended it would be a boycott, because people who use the tag would have seen the first person use it and therefore are acting unitarily. In response to the bit above about the stages of a boycott, the Hogwarts Legacy one is kind of tricky, because there's no before-and-after numbers. It's a single item, no subscription or anything, and people knew to be mad before it officially released so there isn't some point on the sales line where you can point to as "boycott starts here". It's totally possible that the game missed out on many thousands of potential sales, but the results would be invisible. It's really hard to get good data on these sorts of things, so the Bud Light bit is interesting - especially because they managed to piss off both left and right. It seems possible that the secondary backlash was more impactful than the primary backlash tbh - if any significant amount of queer-inclusive bars dropped them in response to the walk back, that would have a much bigger impact on numbers than grocery store sales to randos. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jul 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Leon replied to the replies to reiterate his point that he still thinks Cottonelle is a pertinent example to counter the argument "Bud Light is easy to boycott because the alternative is 1 foot away on the shelf", so it's still a live point in the overall discussion of "why is Bud Light different". If he wants to drop it he can, but he didn't, so it feels a bit silly for you to be defending his honor when he can do it himself. If he now agrees that the amount of media coverage and figurehead support was substantially different, then we can look for other relatively recent examples from the big list that Willa posted or any other product-rather-than-business that people happen to recall to determine if we think the explanation is sufficient or if there might be other trends to analyze here The consumption of alcohol is generally considered more of a social event than the consumption of toilet paper. If you are at a bar with a group of friends and you know some of them are anti-bud light or whatever, you may be less inclined to say 'one bud light please'. If you are going to a party and people there are conservative, you may be less likely to buy a blue cube full of buds light and proudly walk in the door with it. The branding is much stronger and you literally hold it up to your face. "Whats your drink" is essentially an identity thing, much more than "What brand of toilet paper do you use". Its significantly different for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
celadon posted:The consumption of alcohol is generally considered more of a social event than the consumption of toilet paper. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it doesn't falsify the initial point about Bud Light being easily substituted but rather bolsters it. The fact that you can decide in the moment to buy a competitor is the whole point people are trying to make - it's a lot easier than some other things. For that matter, I'd argue that another difference is how often you are buying the product. I can't speak for everyone, but it isn't like I'm going through a whole 12-pack of toilet paper in a week, maybe not even in a month. If the discussion of the ad only lasted for like 3 days, only 1/5th or 1/10th of people who normally would buy Cottonelle would even have an opportunity to change their behavior based on what they heard that day - you'd have to keep it in mind until the next time you actually bought toilet paper. In contrast, the amount of beer that people consume is definitely variable, and there's probably some sort of "80% consumed by 20% of customers" dynamic. The most frequent drinkers get some literally every day, and most anyone who matters will at least drink once or twice a week (sports game nights or weekends). I think that might be more important for the sake of a boycott than anything to do with direct "peer pressure"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I’m not sure why Leon decided to use that fairly dumb source but there are plenty of stories on people being angry at Cottonelle and threatening/participating in boycotts if you do the most cursory google search imaginable. Like most everything else, it's a spectrum, but I'd say the answer here is easy enough: a boycott becomes a serious boycott when entities with actual clout and reach are seriously pushing for it. Joe Nobody can tweet #BoycottGoldbelly to his thirty-eight Twitter followers, but the chance of that spreading to the point of having any real impact is so miniscule that it can't really be treated as a serious effort. Meanwhile, the most popular podcaster (Joe Rogan) had famous rapper Ice Cube on his show recently, and they both praised the boycott, blasted the company for getting "woke politics" in their beers, and accused Mulvaney of being "mentally ill" and an "attention whore". Kid Rock filmed himself shooting up crates of Bud Light with an assault rifle. Senators Ted Cruz and Martha Blackburn called for a Senate investigation into Anheuser-Busch over the Mulvaney partnership, publicly accusing it of being straight-up illegal. The leading Republican presidential candidate has endorsed the boycott. There is enormous media and institutional pressure behind the Bud Light boycott. Right-wing media is still running regular segments about it. Right-wing celebrities and politicians threw loud public support behind the boycott, and some of them are still doing so. That's what a really serious boycott looks like, and that's why it's been so effective. That, and the fact that A-B completely flubbed their response - boycotts with this much media pull often see a corresponding increase in sales from the other side of the aisle, but not this time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There is enormous media and institutional pressure behind the Bud Light boycott. Right-wing media is still running regular segments about it. Right-wing celebrities and politicians threw loud public support behind the boycott, and some of them are still doing so. That's what a really serious boycott looks like, and that's why it's been so effective. That, and the fact that A-B completely flubbed their response - boycotts with this much media pull often see a corresponding increase in sales from the other side of the aisle, but not this time. It does mean that Cottonelle might not be a good comparison, in terms of something that had a backlash and was fungible and easy to stop buying. As for why this boycott in particular gained enough steam to break through and actually start making a difference, vs. Cottonelle, I think it’s just that bigots currently hate trans people way, way, way more than cis gays. I think the responses from the powerful and conservative organizations are more a result of the boycott working than a cause of it, but I don’t know. Their flubbed response had a lot to do with this. Not just because it instigated the inverse boycott, but because it emboldened the boycotters immensely and gave them motivation to keep it up (and apply the same threats to other brands.) Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jul 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
While it's bad for the brand of beer that is Bud Light, how much does AB InBev care? Their stock price has been pretty steady and probably a lot of Bud Light boycotters switched to another InBev product without realizing it. This is an odd story: https://twitter.com/farhip/status/1679184829680848896 WaPo had a writeup about Ateba a couple of weeks ago quote:Simon Ateba was at it again the other week. As White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre addressed journalists during her daily briefing, Ateba spoke up, out of turn. He was a victim, he insisted, of “discrimination” because Jean-Pierre hadn’t called on him to ask a question. He's a bald faced charlatan who is obviously trying to get in on that right wing grift. I'd expect him to have his own Fox hour block after he gets his hard pass yanked. zoux fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jul 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Sure. This is the first in memory that had an actual effect - I suppose any “boycott” isn’t a boycott until it works, so if we’re using that definition then neither Cottonelle or Dick’s or anyone else was boycotted. The question can be framed as “why is this boycott more effective than others” or “why was bud light boycotted when Dick’s wasn’t” but it’s the same question we’re all discussing, I’m pretty sure. I agree that it has a ton to do with them being allowed to openly hate trans people more than they’re allowed to openly hate gay people anymore. I’m not sure I agree about whether the media is driving it or the effectiveness is driving the media. I think it’s a feedback loop. The media and big conservative names started it and the media covered it, but it’s only continued to cover it since it was working.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
zoux posted:While it's bad for the brand of beer that is Bud Light, how much does AB InBev care? Their stock price has been pretty steady and probably a lot of Bud Light boycotters switched to another InBev product without realizing it. I think we probably collectively care less about what the corporation thinks than we do what society at large thinks. The biggest reason this boycott matters is because it directly contributes to the dehumanization of trans people in the US, not because InBev might lose money. The concern is that it might embolden the same people to take similar actions again and cause a chilling effect on trans acceptance in branding and the public square and make coming out as trans more difficult as a result. Because of that, it is important for us to assess if this is a new tactic that is likely to be reproduced or if it was a fluke or confluence of circumstances with limited reproducibility. In the immediate term, it seemed like it did impact some stores in that they reduced or removed pride displays, and specifically, as noted, they are trying to make the wave extend to Target and Chick-fil-A (?). We want to determine if these boycotts will take off, because we want to know if Joe Rogan or whoever can actually mobilize people against ANY brand that supports trans rights in a visible way, or only against a narrow band (i.e. consumer goods, or specifically food and drink, or specifically items that are disproportionately popular with people in his fan base compared to the general population) It definitely seems like they are going to keep trying it, so it is important for us to know how successful it might be and consider what steps or strategies might mitigate it (obviously the Bud Light strategy of walking it back but only halfway is very ineffective) as it contributes to the perception of trans rights as toxic, so even if we don't care about boosting capitalism we need to think about what we can do to pressure orgs not to cave, even if that means threatening an LBGTQ strike instead of trying to purchase poo poo-rear end beer
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
I mean, I can't speak to anyone else, but I am way more brand-loyal to asswipe than beer. Variety is the spice of life when it comes to beer but when it comes to TP or really any personal hygiene products, I want consistency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Wonder how Desantis is going to pitch the expansion of their means-tested public insurance program He's not doing anything and never brings it up. Like most things, this problem could probably be solved with a non profit, public based model I think. I don't know what type of economic growth and profit insurance companies really need to have or expect nor how many of them pay shareholders but I'm gonna go with my gut and presume it's a lot and that might be part of the problem. Another example of "sure we'd love to help people but how can we make money doing that?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 00:32
|
|
|
They just gave a bunch of new immunity to insurance companies here in FL this year and that's still not going to stop them from leaving.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
celadon posted:The consumption of alcohol is generally considered more of a social event than the consumption of toilet paper. It's totally this. I see it at my own workplace with tons of chud customers who day drink a lot, make a point now of ordering Miller Lite and often wedge in a joke about why or make a show of it so everybody knows. Nobody associates wiping their rear end with brand loyalty, at least as far as I know, and very few people having to take a poo poo at a party or a bar are going to inspect the toilet paper brand but they just might notice and react to a cooler full of queer beer or decide not bring a 12er of it to that social engagement. E Also, this sinks it for me. Next party I go to (or host) I'm bringing or busting out one 12 pack of Bud Light and one of Cottonelle just to settle this matter. I'll report back with my findings. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jul 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
Did the TP boycott attempt have anywhere near the entertaining performative destruction videos as the series of dumbasses shooting the poo poo out of cans? The Bud Boycott's success seems to largely be the confluence of components. Easy to switch with little if any inconveniences, hot button social issue, entertaining propaganda, and a built in consumer cohort who actually consume the product at significant levels. If Nikes and Kurrigs were -cheep -perceived as interchangeable with their competition -a frequently purchased good(purchase frequency in days rather than months/years) -about an issue more viral than sports man does thing Those boycott's probably would have had more staying power since the destruction of said objects was a least in the ballpark of as entertaining as a good ol boy shooting the poo poo out of some cans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:He's not doing anything and never brings it up. I imagine that if you removed the profit motive you'd be able to continue insuring houses in Florida longer than if you were extracting money and using it to pay shareholders. Also if you could operate as like, a federal disaster insurance broker our risk gets spread out more which makes it easier to function and to handle large disasters. I think theres a broader issue that theres a one-way ratchet where environmental damage to infrastructure is pretty much only going to get worse, both in intensity and frequency. Theres going to be a lot of people whos houses burn down or flood or get hurricane'd and as the rate of that increases, more and more money will be needed to be routed to rebuilding those houses. And so the cost of insurance will either need to increase or the government will need to subsidize people living in increasingly unsafe areas. I am unsure to the degree this would be difficult for the government to do, like rebuilding a city is expensive but theres a lot of country to absorb it. How many ~100k person cities can be repaired from a natural disaster per year given our national capacity to do that sort of work? Probably a lot but it is a finite amount and rebuilding work is going to compete with the construction of new infrastructure needed to reduce and adapt to climate change. I also think there is the potential for significantly demoralizing events to alter the calculus. I.e., imagine a coastal city takes a devastating hit from a hurricane prompting a massive federal reconstruction effort, and then takes a devastating hit from another hurricane one year later, ruining all the restoration that had occurred. That may cause a reassessment earlier than if disasters are more spread out. Probably there will be a lot of political battles that occur at all levels of government over the degree to which people should be able to live in increasingly unsafe areas and the amount of government protection that should be allotted to them. There is a ton of uncertainty as to the specifics (will my town get hit by a hurricane in the next 15 years?) and people understandably are very attached to where they live so I expect it to be extremely contentious. Ive read articles about houses on coastal cliffs that were degrading and the conflicts between homeowners and municipalities and that sort of property-safety-subsidy tension is going to flare up in more and more places as we move forward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
That basically describes FEMA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
Yeah we know how to solve this problem with state dollars. You have to subsidize people building safe houses in safe areas instead of subsidizing people building the same danger castles over and over again in the same swamp. Ok the government makes you whole but no more building in flood plains you gotta take your money and rebuild somewhere else. But that isn't capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah we know how to solve this problem with state dollars. You have to subsidize people building safe houses in safe areas instead of subsidizing people building the same danger castles over and over again in the same swamp. Ok the government makes you whole but no more building in flood plains you gotta take your money and rebuild somewhere else. Unfortunately this cannot work Flordia as almost the entire population of the state is living in an unsafe area, and there's little to no safe area to move to that's still in Flordia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:Unfortunately this cannot work Flordia as almost the entire population of the state is living in an unsafe area, and there's little to no safe area to move to that's still in Flordia. That's definitely not accurate. The vast majority of Florida is not in an area that is unsafe to live. But, almost all of the southern coastline (where everyone wants to live and build houses) are in high-risk flood zones AND hurricane zones. If you have a house and a piece of land in an incredibly valuable area and you can either get made entirely whole every 6 years when it gets destroyed or move to a much worse place an hour from the beach, you are just gonna rebuild the house on the same plot. There is also a difference between "area could potentially be impacted by a hurricane" and "high-risk flood zone." The flood zones are the areas with massive insurance costs because they are semi-frequently "totaled" via flood damage every 5 or 6 years. The house itself is structurally fine, but if you are completely flooded, then it basically destroys the house with mold/electrical issues/foundation issues and requires an almost total interior tear-down and rebuilding of the guts of your house. When you have a $2 million house that needs $1.5 million in insurance payouts every 5 to 6 years, then it gets insanely expensive to insure. Places more inland are potentially in the path of a hurricane if there is a large storm, but they aren't constantly at risk of being destroyed by flooding from just regular rainfalls because of how low the elevation is in the area. They aren't "unsafe" from an insurance perspective like large chunks of the southern coastline are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
Is there a reason these coastal/flood zone Floridian homes aren't on stilts of some kind then? I grew up in FL and unless a house is like literally right next to the beach they're all ground level. Guessing it's just cheaper and that's all there is to it. But people are also moving to those further inland areas just as fast, if not more so. My parents house is on the outskirts of Tampa and when we moved in in 2000 it was on the edge of rural areas including cow pastures, now miles and miles beyond my parents house is packed to the brim with new subdivisions and strip malls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 04:17
|
|
|
Most houses in the Keys are on stilts You’re not going to see that much outside of the Keys though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
Mustang posted:Is there a reason these coastal/flood zone Floridian homes aren't on stilts of some kind then? I grew up in FL and unless a house is like literally right next to the beach they're all ground level. Guessing it's just cheaper and that's all there is to it. My parents who live on the Louisiana coast just had their house lifted 8ft in the air. It was (mostly) paid for by a government grant but it took almost 5 years for the whole process to happen. The cost of everything all together was around $75000, granted their house is about 3000sqft, but that is a pretty significant amount of money and time. It's much cheaper to have a house prebuilt on stilts rather than raised after the fact but climate change makes it difficult to predict where exactly that's needed. I personally think we need to start moving back away from the coasts as sea levels rise but a lot of people are just too stubborn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 07:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1679287184254287873 The Republican ratfuckers and bored political journalists propping this guy up should probably remind him that he's running for the Democratic Party's nomination for president.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
Guys, I think Robert "vaccines are literal poison, trans people are gross and being used by big pharma to sell us hormones and drugs to poison our kids, Russia was forced to invade Ukraine in self-defense, climate change is a false flag to control us, there are 'some merits' to Jewish conspiracy theories, Prozac is the cause of nearly every mass shooting in America, and bitcoin will replace all global currencies in a decade" Kennedy Jr. might have some bad ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
Yeah but if he gets the nomination we have to vote for him. Might as well get onboard now. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:27
|
|
|
Vote Q No Matter Who
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:30
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Vote Q No Matter Who 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:31
|
|
|
Vote blue no matter... who?!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Guys, I think Robert "vaccines are literal poison, trans people are gross and being used by big pharma to sell us hormones and drugs to poison our kids, Russia was forced to invade Ukraine in self-defense, climate change is a false flag to control us, there are 'some merits' to Jewish conspiracy theories, Prozac is the cause of nearly every mass shooting in America, and bitcoin will replace all global currencies in a decade" Kennedy Jr. might have some bad ideas. You know who tried to warn America about those god damned Kennedies, right?  But no one listened to Cassandra, either 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Yeah but if he gets the nomination we have to vote for him. Might as well get onboard now. Well, at least we can push him left if he does get in, as long as we don't do something stupid like blindly hand over anything that even remotely resembles leverage without getting anything in return. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
NBC News ran a piece about younger voters this cycle. Highlights bolded instead of restated. Biden confronts a 'pissed-off generation' of young voters who may be decisive in 2024 quote:In 2020, Joe Biden scored a narrow Electoral College victory with a decisive assist from young voters. But as the president looks beyond his first term, many young voters are not satisfied, presenting a fresh challenge as he heads into a likely rematch with former President Donald Trump in 2024. What are you guys sussing out from the Kids These Days in your universe? And if you were a political strategist, what would you suggest that Democrats do to woo the young'uns?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
They won't try. 'Kids don't vote' becomes 'don't try' and the cycle continues to ratchet rightwards
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Guys, I think Robert "vaccines are literal poison, trans people are gross and being used by big pharma to sell us hormones and drugs to poison our kids, Russia was forced to invade Ukraine in self-defense, climate change is a false flag to control us, there are 'some merits' to Jewish conspiracy theories, Prozac is the cause of nearly every mass shooting in America, and bitcoin will replace all global currencies in a decade" Kennedy Jr. might have some bad ideas. KENNEDY WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY This iconoclast's win places a Biden second term in doubt
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Yesterday's Morning Consult poll has DeSantis at 17 percent among GOP voters, the same percentage RFK Jr. had a couple weeks ago in the Fox News poll among Dem voters. eta: Quinnipiac also had RFK Jr. at 17 percent last month. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Jul 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 15:09
|
|