|
I want there to be an n-word tape so bad Like, I feel bad rooting for a national candidate for the presidency to dehumanize black voters on a global stage, but I also want to see how hard this turkey can burn
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:For future lurkers: Plus given the rate of sexual assault, most of us have loved ones who are victims of it. After this tape came out I found out the same thing has happened to close members of my family. This is everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
what a fun monday to be looking at polls
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Pastrymancy posted:The moral of this story is, as Deadspin put it: gently caress that she serves for life and cannot be removed. I expect more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
the house district i'm in is 100% guaranteed to go blue this year, my ballot choices are a guy who's been in the state senate for a while, is decently progressive and is a party line democrat, or a gay vietnamese mayor who is running from the left, and is also a democrat. those are my choices. so the effect that this is going to have on the downballot races where i live is pretty much nil
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
lozzle posted:gently caress that she serves for life and cannot be removed. it is ok for old people to have opinions not commonly held by young people one day you too will be old, and be disconnected from the youth, who will think you are an irredeemable poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Antti posted:NBC poll in a nutshell: Women already knew Trump was a piece of poo poo, men only got on with the program after the tape came out. (Really supports the "my property" theory, too.) They have articles, maybe every week trying to explain how their lovely poll works They know its an insane outlier
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Jesus! What is the actual demographic again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Is anyone else concerned that these numbers are coming a full 4 weeks before Election Day instead of closer to it? not really, because there's going to be more very bad stuff for Trump. There's absolutely no way that Grabgate was the last thing in the tank
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:This actually seems like the worst possible strategy because 'every man for himself' routs are where most of the killing happens. Losing cohesion is dangerous. Yeah. From this position, a big loss in the presidential race is a given, and significant loss in the Congress is likely. If the goal is retaining the most seats, SOME kind of cohesive strategy would be best. Either the whole party not endorsing/unendorsing and condemning Trump, or all of them sticking with him. "Every man for himself! The rout is on!" means you can get some combination of: -Deploreables voting Trump only and leaving downticket blank -Nondeploreables voting R downticket and leaving the top blank, third party or write in -Some people switching D either up or downticket -and a substantial number of demoralized R voters, deploreable and nondeploreable varieties, staying home. I would definitely think this would have to lead to the worst congressional numbers and most silly EV margins. The only reason to do it is longer term considerations, trying to preserve the viability of the party and individual candidates in future elections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Jesus!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Probably not, but he should. The GOP basically got to stall the nomination in case a Republican won the WH, and then if they lose they still get the compromise candidate Obama offered them. nope
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Endorph posted:because getting the republican party to do their loving jobs is like pulling teeth and we're gleeful when they decide to let the government work for five seconds every four years Future Senates in the same situation can stall on a President's fourth/eighth-year nominee, in case they win the WH, and if they don't the precedent now is that they can still take the compromise the POTUS offered up. Am I the only one who believes this makes the Dems look weak and is a terrible precedent to set?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:nope
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I want there to be an n-word tape so bad hillery been doing that since the 90s
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
lozzle posted:gently caress that she serves for life and cannot be removed. Remember, her personal opinion is not as relevant as her willingness to separate her opinion from law. I do not care if she personally finds the protest stupid if she is willing to defend the constitutionality of it
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Jesus! 72% non-hispanic white in 2012. http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/ Remember, polls like this aren't designed to reflect total demo of country, but the subset that is "likely voters" or "debate watchers" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The Republican party has already not done their jobs. By nominating Garland in the lame duck they are being rewarded for it. That will encourage similar behavior in the future. This is bad. is there any actual evidence that he's going to be appointed? McConnell has been solidly against it and as recently as last week, other R lawmakers were posturing to never appoint anyone at all to that seat
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
HOLY gently caress That's the kind of demo split they use to make it look like Trump has a shot in Pennsylvania and Hillary is still crushing that fat orange bastard into gross pesto.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The Republican party has already not done their jobs. By nominating Garland in the lame duck they are being rewarded for it. That will encourage similar behavior in the future. This is bad. Playing politics with Garland's career is not going to endear the Democrats to any future potential justices and is pretty scummy to boot. Also, Garland's old; if Hillary gets two terms there's an (admittedly not super likely) chance she just replaces him herself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The Republican party has already not done their jobs. By nominating Garland in the lame duck they are being rewarded for it. That will encourage similar behavior in the future. This is bad. It is a bad precedent. It would also be a bad precedent for Obama to withdraw his nominee out of spite, proving that nominating Garland at all was a political move rather than him picking the person he thought was the best justice for the job. The bad precedent was set when the Senate decided to gently caress with the nomination process and there is now no good way out. No matter what you do you're setting a precedent that further entrenches the Supreme Court as a political football.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:hillery been doing that since the 90s Haha, how loving mad are you that Trump is gonna lose bigly?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
USPOL October: AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The Republican party has already not done their jobs. By confirming Garland in the lame duck they are being rewarded for it. That will encourage similar behavior in the future. This is bad. Stonewalling Garland is not a popular decision but the GOP doesn't care. They aren't being rewarded it for it and we'll know for sure in November.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:hmm good point mcconnell refusing to even consider the nomination plays very well, people may not like democrats but they loving hate it when politicians wont do their loving jobs obama rescinding the nomination just gives them ammo to say "see! he didnt intend for us to actually confirm garland. we were right to stonewall" seriously its nothing but bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
greatn posted:Plus given the rate of sexual assault, most of us have loved ones who are victims of it. After this tape came out I found out the same thing has happened to close members of my family. This is everywhere. Agreed, and an unbelievably depressing realization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it is ok for old people to have opinions not commonly held by young people Never! I will always strive to be as progressive as humanly possible. If in the future polygamy is considered acceptable then I will support it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:hillery been doing that since the 90s lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I want there to be an n-word tape so bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
On a more negative note: The senate votes seem to be going down. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:hillery been doing that since the 90s nice
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Playing politics with Garland's career is not going to endear the Democrats to any future potential justices and is pretty scummy to boot. Garland is 5 years younger than Hillary, it's extremely unlikely she would nominate his replacement. He would probably serve on the bench for 20 years, which is still pretty decent. It's just not Clarence Thomas, who will probably end up sitting on the Supreme Court for almost half a century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Important reminder: early voting has already begun in many states, meaning Trump will have a cumulative deficit of votes building against him over time. Even if he somehow manages to eek out a slight lead in polling by election day that still wouldn't be enough, because now he's fighting against a vote deficit. Every day that Hillary maintains her lead, the more impossible it becomes for Trump to make a comeback.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:hillery been doing that since the 90s  never stop postingemdash posted:is there any actual evidence that he's going to be appointed? McConnell has been solidly against it and as recently as last week, other R lawmakers were posturing to never appoint anyone at all to that seat I mean yeah maybe you're right I'm just laughing at the thought of pointing to anything McConnell says or does as an indication of what he thinks or what he's going to do in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The Republican party has already not done their jobs. By confirming Garland in the lame duck they are being rewarded for it. That will encourage similar behavior in the future. This is bad. But either alternative is worse. If Obama withdraws Garland he is condoning the republican narrative that a President does not have the right to nominate in his last year - it's now an accepted thing instead of sheer hackery. If the Republicans do consent to Garland, the system eventually worked. Though in a problematic way, yes, but the man nominated by POTUS got to take the job. That's how it's supposed to work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:On a more negative note: The senate votes seem to be going down. There's still time for Trump to drive down turnout
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:On a more negative note: The senate votes seem to be going down. lol theres no way
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:
On the other hand, this is a good time to point out to anyone that lives in a red district in a heavily gerrymandered state where you normally wouldn't even bother with the house race, it's probably R+5ish and that is totally in play now. Assuming your state party isn't so worthless that they didn't bother fielding anyone, get out there and do work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:On a more negative note: The senate votes seem to be going down. And this kind of landslide is guaranteed to hand the senate over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Remember, her personal opinion is not as relevant as her willingness to separate her opinion from law. And her feelings have more to do with the national anthem than the cause of the protest, much like John Paul Stevens getting defensive over the flag. Even Scalia was willing to defend the constitutionality of acts of protest like flag burning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:40
|
|
