Just now, Balta1701 said:

We'll see about that. They're going to go all-in on the racist fear of everyone on a scale they haven't been able to do in these special elections. 

For sure, and the SCOTUS thing changes the game in a way I can't predict yet either, depending on the timeline of how it plays out. More D turnout in resistance? Turnout of Rs who wouldn't have otherwise because they're excited about overturning RvW? R apathy when the SCOTUS nom gets confirmed and they feel like they don't have to vote because they've "won"? Who knows.

But results thus far across the country in primaries have shown a much higher activation level among Ds than Rs. I mean I posted the voter registration numbers in Iowa over the last month. 24,000 new Ds and only 3,500 new Rs. That's nothing to scoff at.

Just now, Reddy said:

See the edit. Hillary's performance in '16 with rural folks has literally zero to do with a typical Dem's performance with rural folks in '18. Literally zero. Please, I'm begging you, follow the guys at 538 on Twitter for like - two weeks. You'll understand all of this stuff much better.

Trust me, I understand just fine.  I am not the one trying intentionally ignoring and manipulating data to empower a political party over actual candidates.  I mean even in that list you completely ignored the fact that about half of those states were primary states.  But it didn't fit the Democratic Party agenda so you hand-waved it and continued with the charade that it was just caucuses.  And despite all of the discussion around everything else, you keep trying to pretend it is just the caucuses, because that is what the party is telling you to say.

A lot of intelligent people are trying to get you see something other than the party line.  Even though you irrationally despise me, it isn't just me saying it.

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Trust me, I understand just fine.  I am not the one trying intentionally ignoring and manipulating data to empower a political party over actual candidates.  I mean even in that list you completely ignored the fact that about half of those states were primary states.  But it didn't fit the Democratic Party agenda so you hand-waved it and continued with the charade that it was just caucuses.  And despite all of the discussion around everything else, you keep trying to pretend it is just the caucuses, because that is what the party is telling you to say.

A lot of intelligent people are trying to get you see something other than the party line.  Even though you irrationally despise me, it isn't just me saying it.

Are you saying 538 ignores and manipulates data, too, or just me? Bud, you're the person who keeps bringing it back to Hillary. No matter how many times I say she was a poor candidate - which I've done countless times - you completely ignore that and jump on whatever else you want to attack about my position. Everything you claim I do, you do in spades. You cherry pick, you ignore data, you misunderstand data, and you all the time dig in your heels and declare yourself correct. I'm so very close to putting you on ignore, because your posts never add anything to the discussion.

Just now, Reddy said:

Are you saying 538 ignores and manipulates data, too, or just me? Bud, you're the person who keeps bringing it back to Hillary. No matter how many times I say she was a poor candidate - which I've done countless times - you completely ignore that and jump on whatever else you want to attack about my position. Everything you claim I do, you do in spades. You cherry pick, you ignore data, you misunderstand data, and you all the time dig in your heels and declare yourself correct. I'm so very close to putting you on ignore, because your posts never add anything to the discussion.

Yikes.  You quite literally picked part of a list, ignored the rest, and declared the problem was related to only the part of the list you chose to acknowledge.  But the problem is that I don't read 538, and that I actually understand the Dems should actually try to learn from 2016 instead of repeating the same mistakes of blindly supporting bad candidates.

Yeah, if this is your defense, you should put me on ignore because you aren't going to want to see my responses.

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yikes.  You quite literally picked part of a list, ignored the rest, and declared the problem was related to only the part of the list you chose to acknowledge.  But the problem is that I don't read 538, and that I actually understand the Dems should actually try to learn from 2016 instead of repeating the same mistakes of blindly supporting bad candidates.

Yeah, if this is your defense, you should put me on ignore because you aren't going to want to see my responses.

Lol. Dems have, are, and will continue to learn from 2016. The approach is completely different this year. You only don't think so because you've decided that for yourself despite all of the evidence to the contrary. You just like trashing Dems and stoking the far-left narrative because you think it helps Rs. You're very transparent.

And it's very clear that you don't read 538.

Edited July 3, 20187 yr by Reddy

Annnnyway. Back to planning campaign events and registering and talking to voters. Y'all have fun on the interwebs. (Any of you D's volunteering on campaigns? We need ya)

1 minute ago, Reddy said:

Lol. Dems have, are, and will continue to learn from 2016. The approach is completely different this year. You only don't think so because you've decided that for yourself despite all of the evidence to the contrary. You just like trashing Dems and stoking the far-left narrative because you think it helps Rs. You're very transparent.

And it's very clear that you don't read 538.

Yeah, no.  I wised up and left the GOP.  I got that marching in line wasn't what was best for this country and don't support the party anymore.  Instead of looking at everything through partisan glasses, you could actually look at the information and situations in front of you for what they are, and not what the party tells you they are. 

And I think the reason people keep responding to your posts is two fold.  #1 you keep claiming to be a party insider and some sort of expert on what the party strategy is, and then #2 simultaneously trashing anyone who doesn't who isn't falling into the party line.  This is exactly what the party did in 2016, and it failed, and failed miserably.  People stayed home, and the party lost.  Now, we see more of the same again.  If this is really what the party is about, they didn't learn a thing from 2016, despite what they are telling you.  I whole-heartly want to see Donald Trump lose, and seeing party insiders continue to shit on their own party for thinking differently is exactly the problem here.  For the party of inclusion to be acting like the party of Trump just doesn't work.  I mean you are here trashing a candidate in your own party publicly because she disagrees with the party line, just like Donald Trump would and does.

9 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Are you saying 538 ignores and manipulates data, too, or just me? Bud, you're the person who keeps bringing it back to Hillary. No matter how many times I say she was a poor candidate - which I've done countless times - you completely ignore that and jump on whatever else you want to attack about my position. Everything you claim I do, you do in spades. You cherry pick, you ignore data, you misunderstand data, and you all the time dig in your heels and declare yourself correct. I'm so very close to putting you on ignore, because your posts never add anything to the discussion.

The subject we were talking about was the midwest. Here are some facts on that. Bernie Sanders won more midwest states than Hillary Clinton (4-3), more midwest primaries (3-2), and was within half a percentage point in Iowa and 2 percentage points in Illinois, where Clinton should've had home state advantage. To me, that says that the people of the midwest were very receptive to Bernie Sanders's economic populist message, and I see no reason that this wouldn't carry over, especially since healthcare and the economy are the top two issues of voters as of now, and the most popular policy positions on each of those issues came directly from the Bernie Sanders platform. But I suppose that's cherry picking or manipulating data?

Saw the GOP Rep involved in university sex scandal coverup article this morning, saw the possible number of victims just now.

 

Not a great week for GOP with this Ohio situation and Pruitt wiping public records to distance himself from a figure in the Catholic Church he associated with numerous times...recently himself brought down by abuse/rape charges.

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yeah, no.  I wised up and left the GOP.  I got that marching in line wasn't what was best for this country and don't support the party anymore.  Instead of looking at everything through partisan glasses, you could actually look at the information and situations in front of you for what they are, and not what the party tells you they are. 

And I think the reason people keep responding to your posts is two fold.  #1 you keep claiming to be a party insider and some sort of expert on what the party strategy is, and then #2 simultaneously trashing anyone who doesn't who isn't falling into the party line.  This is exactly what the party did in 2016, and it failed, and failed miserably.  People stayed home, and the party lost.  Now, we see more of the same again.  If this is really what the party is about, they didn't learn a thing from 2016, despite what they are telling you.  I whole-heartly want to see Donald Trump lose, and seeing party insiders continue to shit on their own party for thinking differently is exactly the problem here.  For the party of inclusion to be acting like the party of Trump just doesn't work.  I mean you are here trashing a candidate in your own party publicly because she disagrees with the party line, just like Donald Trump would and does.

Dem turnout is up dramatically. Your narratives just aren't based in fact.

4 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

The subject we were talking about was the midwest. Here are some facts on that. Bernie Sanders won more midwest states than Hillary Clinton (4-3), more midwest primaries (3-2), and was within half a percentage point in Iowa and 2 percentage points in Illinois, where Clinton should've had home state advantage. To me, that says that the people of the midwest were very receptive to Bernie Sanders's economic populist message, and I see no reason that this wouldn't carry over, especially since healthcare and the economy are the top two issues of voters as of now, and the most popular policy positions on each of those issues came directly from the Bernie Sanders platform. But I suppose that's cherry picking or manipulating data?

Because it hasn't? In ACTUAL elections, the Berniecrats have lost nearly every race throughout the midwest since 2016. Bernie's top Iowa staffer in '16 came in a distant 3rd in Iowa's 3rd District primary.

I have two words for why BernieCrats lost in IL: Mike Madigan. I was involved during the primaries and Madigan was attacking BernieCrats as GOP in disguise. 

4 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

The subject we were talking about was the midwest. Here are some facts on that. Bernie Sanders won more midwest states than Hillary Clinton (4-3), more midwest primaries (3-2), and was within half a percentage point in Iowa and 2 percentage points in Illinois, where Clinton should've had home state advantage. To me, that says that the people of the midwest were very receptive to Bernie Sanders's economic populist message, and I see no reason that this wouldn't carry over, especially since healthcare and the economy are the top two issues of voters as of now, and the most popular policy positions on each of those issues came directly from the Bernie Sanders platform. But I suppose that's cherry picking or manipulating data?

You guys mock me, but I am a typical midwest voter. And I loved Bernie. They held a pre-election speech in KC for Hillary. The place was 1/2 full. Bernie spoke in Lawrence. Fans arrived 8 hours early to get in. Packed house. We in the midwest love Bernie.

4 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

The subject we were talking about was the midwest. Here are some facts on that. Bernie Sanders won more midwest states than Hillary Clinton (4-3), more midwest primaries (3-2), and was within half a percentage point in Iowa and 2 percentage points in Illinois, where Clinton should've had home state advantage. To me, that says that the people of the midwest were very receptive to Bernie Sanders's economic populist message, and I see no reason that this wouldn't carry over, especially since healthcare and the economy are the top two issues of voters as of now, and the most popular policy positions on each of those issues came directly from the Bernie Sanders platform. But I suppose that's cherry picking or manipulating data?

You guys mock me, but I am a typical midwest voter. And I loved Bernie. They held a pre-election speech in KC for Hillary. The place was 1/2 full. Bernie spoke in Lawrence. Fans arrived 8 hours early to get in. Packed house. We in the midwest love Bernie.

Does anybody here ever watch those witches on The View? I watch highlights on youtube sometimes of segments. Why don't they just call it "Hating on Trump?" Everything is political on there and it's all anti-Trump. They won't refer to Trump by his name. Whoopi calls him the guy in the White House. Joy Behar acts as if he is the devil. Poor Meghan McCain is the only Republican and Whoopi was screaming at her the other day.

One of the View panelists I forget her name, she's an attorney, said she approved of kicking Republicans out of restaurants. She said we have the right to express our feelings that way. I'm guessing that Red Hen owner will go out of business soon. Hope her snobbishness/meanness was worth it to her.

The only experience I have with Sanders popularity was in Chicago. It was St Patricks day. There was only 1 bar completely empty, and it was a Sanders rally.

I have no idea anything else, but that election is long gone. Whomever gets the most votes in the next elections should represent their party.

Just now, Soxbadger said:

The only experience I have with Sanders popularity was in Chicago. It was St Patricks day. There was only 1 bar completely empty, and it was a Sanders rally.

I have no idea anything else, but that election is long gone. Whomever gets the most votes in the next elections should represent their party.

I wonder why Chicago hated on him.

1 minute ago, greg775 said:

Does anybody here ever watch those witches on The View? I watch highlights on youtube sometimes of segments. Why don't they just call it "Hating on Trump?" Everything is political on there and it's all anti-Trump. They won't refer to Trump by his name. Whoopi calls him the guy in the White House. Joy Behar acts as if he is the devil. Poor Meghan McCain is the only Republican and Whoopi was screaming at her the other day.

One of the View panelists I forget her name, she's an attorney, said she approved of kicking Republicans out of restaurants. She said we have the right to express our feelings that way. I'm guessing that Red Hen owner will go out of business soon. Hope her snobbishness/meanness was worth it to her.

Thankfully this isn't misogynist at all.

Just now, greg775 said:

I wonder why Chicago hated on him.

No idea. Maybe due to his disloyalty to the Democratic party. Maybe because of Obama and the fact Hillary seemed to have his endorsement. A lot of reasons to speculate, but Sanders did not do well in Cook County. Basically Hillary's lead in cook county carried her for the entire state. 

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Thankfully this isn't misogynist at all.

I'm not anti women. I rather like McCain. I don't like panelists who scream over each other. And all except McCain on that show do that. 

1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:

No idea. Maybe due to his disloyalty to the Democratic party. Maybe because of Obama and the fact Hillary seemed to have his endorsement. A lot of reasons to speculate, but Sanders did not do well in Cook County. Basically Hillary's lead in cook county carried her for the entire state. 

This isn't hard, it's the reason Greg doesn't care about. Black People and Hispanic People. Bernie Sanders did not care about their issues and to this day we constantly get statements, even in this thread, about how their desire not to be shot in the streets is less important than Bernie's important economic message. 

Hillary Clinton worked hard to earn that portion of the electorate. She met with black and hispanic leaders for years, incorporated their ideas into her policy proposals, could speak intelligently on issues relevant to them, and that contrasted with Bernie who responded to questions about their issues with stereotypes and never bothered meeting even local officials in those areas. 

2 minutes ago, greg775 said:

I'm not anti women. I rather like McCain. I don't like panelists who scream over each other. And all except McCain on that show do that. 

You just called them witches. 

46 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Dem turnout is up dramatically. Your narratives just aren't based in fact.

Other than the fact they are still acting the same way towards none mainstream candidates.

Other than the fact the party lost the last election to the worst candidate in modern history.

Other than the fact that I left the GOP.

Other than the fact that you keep claiming to be Dem insider.

Other than the fact you are still trashing candidates from your own party, just like Trump.

Other than the fact the party is still eating its own candidates publicly.

And on and on...

 

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This isn't hard, it's the reason Greg doesn't care about. Black People and Hispanic People. Bernie Sanders did not care about their issues and to this day we constantly get statements, even in this thread, about how their desire not to be shot in the streets is less important than Bernie's important economic message. 

Hillary Clinton worked hard to earn that portion of the electorate. She met with black and hispanic leaders for years, incorporated their ideas into her policy proposals, could speak intelligently on issues relevant to them, and that contrasted with Bernie who responded to questions about their issues with stereotypes and never bothered meeting even local officials in those areas. 

This continues to be one of the biggest lies from that election.  It is so frustrating to keep on pointing it out. 

I give up on liberals.  Go vote for Michael Bloomberg or the Starbucks guy or whatever. 

 

 

Edited July 3, 20187 yr by GoSox05