Democrats

[mimekiller]

Well its just a simple one time credit to any account impacted by the October 9th outage which includes my happy ass.

[mimekiller]

If Bloomberg AND HC join the race before Christmas I will be VERY happy.

[Mike]

Bloomberg can join the race if he wants. It will make no difference.

Clinton isn't ever getting back in. Her moment has passed. And yet, in spite of losing, she remains the most evil of bogeymen for Republicans. They have been running against her non-stop for the last 3 years, and they treat her like she really does run a shadow government more powerful than the Illuminati. In spite of the evidence, they believe that she was the mastermind behind Epstein's death. A criminal genius who can manipulate everything from behind the scenes and yet forgot to make herself win when she rigged the last election. But it doesn't matter, because defeat has only made her more powerful. She won't run because she knows that time has somehow only increased hate for her.

Side note: why are almost all of the biggest bogeymen for the Republicans women? I mean, George Soros is an exception, but most people don't really know what Soros looks like (and the same can be said of the Kochs). No, if you want a seious bogeyman face to put into your right wing meme, you use Clinton or Pelosi or AOC.

[mimekiller]

You are right about her being a boogeyman but I don't know about her not running...but yea because of my job I end up tuning into HANNITY for like 5 minutes total a day and if thats where you got your news would be convinced that HC would be doing a perp walk ANY DAY NOW hahhaha

[poorpete]

[Phoebe]

If we need a white guy why would we pick some elitist asshole and not, say, Steve Bullock, who has actually been a successful governor? I went looking for a picture/clip of Steve and was impressed by his first 30 seconds in this interview, where he manages to seem like a totally normal and functional person, call out the usual circus b******* as wrong and racist, and immediately pivot back to talking about healthcare access and education. I wasn't really thinking about this dude much because I haven't been watching the debates or anything, but now I'm intrigued to see whether he's trucking across Iowa.

[Mike]

Alright, I concede. Biden may or may not be a Republican, but he's not above cribbing straight from their playbook to score points.

[mimekiller]

Having failed to provide for American citizens, we are now building a welfare state for the whole world.Good grief!


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... portations

[Phoebe]

Oh Lord we are going to do no such thing at any time in our lifetimes and you know it.

[Mike]

Biden, Harris, Buttigieg, Klobachar... all playing the moderate game. None of them are solutions to what ails this country, because--as moderates--they all want to convey the message to rich people that yeah, we're progressive and we want to fix stuff, but don't worry, your money is still safe. So they will promise great change but not have the political or actual capital to make any of it happen. And much like the end of Obama's presidency, people will come away disillusioned and disappointed and nothing will have been fixed.

President Moderate will only take us back to the frustrating status quo that brought us to Trump in the first place. Fox News still rules, the Judiciary is still in ultraconservative hands and will remain that way, because Mitch still holds the fucking gavel, and the next GOP president after the moderate won't be a buffoon and will do all the horrible things the GOP hired Trump to do, but they'll actually be good at NOT getting caught. Trump's approval has been a rock-solid 40% no matter what he does. Imagine if he wasn't a total idiot.

But no matter how much I think another moderate dem is a bad idea, I'm finally starting to agree with people who say that we have to nominate Biden, because anyone else won't be able to beat Trump. The numbers that are out now showing all three dem front runners beating Trump by double digits in head to head matches are bullshit. They're undercounting Trump support the same way they did last time. Dems need to win the popular vote by 5-6 points to win the Electoral College, and Biden is realistically at 7-8 right now. Everyone else is at least a couple points behind him. That's too close.

I think Biden is absolutely the wrong person for this, for so many reasons, but I also think a Biden/Harris ticket is the best way to remove Trump from office, and we can worry about the rest later.

[akiva]

[Mike]

For reference (and I'm just paraphrasing the last guest on the FiveThirtyEight podcast) in the last three presidential elections, the polls 1 year ahead of time were about as accurate as the ones 1 week ahead of time. But that may just be coincidence. On the other hand we have a president with very constant approval numbers, well known contenders, and a highly polarized electorate, so it's very possible that the numbers won't move much. On the other hand, this guy was arguing that the double-digit polls were off base and offered his reasons why, thus explaining why HIS polling a year ahead of time was more reasonable.

All I know is I'm not counting on anything this far out.

[mimekiller]

Last time the polls on THE DAY of the election were useless, I was tuned into NPR at home for most of the day and they were going over respected polls that had HC walking away with a 90 percent+ chance of victory. That people give them any weight after that fateful November day is beyond absurd

[Mike]

Not true. The polls in 2016 were exactly as accurate as they always are--that is, within about 2-3 percentage points of the actual totals. What was fucked was the interpretation of those poll numbers by pollsters themselves and the media.

Let's remember that in the couple weeks leading up to the election, fivethirtyeight kept saying Trump had a 30% chance of winning. The majority of people were ecstatic, because they don't understand odds and equated Hilary's 70% of winning with her getting 70% of the vote which just seemed overwhelming. And the people who DO understand odds lambasted 538 for going so high on Trump, because common wisdom said there was no way for him to win.

But if you looked only at the polls and looked for the chances of actual results falling at various points within the margin of error, his odds were nearly 1 in 3. Do YOU want to play Russian Roulette with 2 bullets in the chamber? 1 in 3 means less likely, but still pretty likely. And so it went.

[Phoebe]

Ya, and his particular style of electoral college victory, while losing popular vote, was compatible with polls favoring Hillary. It also underscores Mike's point that whoever goes against him needs to be whoever can absolutely crush him in the polls head to head.

[Tahlvin]

And not just national polls, but in the few states that are actually up for grabs in the electoral college.

[Mike]

My hope is that the impeachment hearings bring the facts of Trump's crimes to a wider audience and that his 40% approval now slowly turns to a very unenthusiastic 40%, resulting in motivated dems and unmotivated Republicans come election day. But impeachment could be done by January, and 10 months is a long time for people to just forget what Trump is.

[Phoebe]

Ooooh Deval Patrick! Exciting unexpected addition.

[poorpete]

[Mike]