The Swamp

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:03 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:36 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:30 pmBiden is at 50% in the 538 tracker. Was Hillary ever that high?

She was not, but Trump's current 41.9% is actually 0.1% higher than he was on election day 2016.

Do you know what Hillary’s and Trump’s polling percentages were at this point in 2016? I couldn’t find a link to the 2016 tracker over time.

Why does it matter? Everyone needs to stop with the 2016 comparison to 2020. Different race all together. We know even more about Trump. That alone should be what we are fighting against. And enough about Bernie not getting the nomination. He didn't. Move on to the next primary. Hopefully we get someone with Bernie's policies on the ticket in the next four to eight years. That would be great. But those changes need to start at the local and state levels. Make the stand there. And the blue no matter who applies only to the presidential race against Trump. Not anyone else. And those that were in the primaries. So don't throw Manchin in the mix. Or Romney.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:03 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:36 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:30 pmBiden is at 50% in the 538 tracker. Was Hillary ever that high?

She was not, but Trump's current 41.9% is actually 0.1% higher than he was on election day 2016.

Do you know what Hillary’s and Trump’s polling percentages were at this point in 2016? I couldn’t find a link to the 2016 tracker over time.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:07 pm The left side of the country overwhelmingly favors legalization. The left side of the country strongly favors M4A. The DNC opposes (or doesn't actively fight for, if you like that phrasing better) both.

The DNC serves their corporate overlords, not the people. While they are better than the RNC, both are corporate shills, but the Dems throw a bone to the people every now and then. Dems talk a good game of caring about policies that help people, and some actually mean it, but the nature of the corporate backed two party system requires the DNC to sell their power to big money interests in order to fund campaigns. It's such a shitty system, and until we take money out of politics, it won't change.

That's not entirely true, but the other path has been declared a non-starter because only certain people get concessions in return for votes ; )

Huh. Shocking.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:22 pm Huh. Shocking.

Is that supposed to be a pro-Bloomberg story (and response) or anti-Bloomberg?

If all they have is "some say he should spend more," that really doesn't seem like much of a story.

I'm not seeing how you can kill the guy for spending $350M. No one's ever going to be happy with where it goes.

Bloomberg has already spent well over $350 million for Democrats this cycle, according to his team, including the following investments:

• $275 million in anti-Trump ads during his primary campaign

• $35 million for a digital and data platform he gives to Democratic campaigns at cost.

• $18 million transferred from his campaign to the Democratic Party.

• $10 million to House Majority PAC, the lead outside group backing House Democrats.

• $5 million to Fair Fight, the voting rights group led by Stacey Abrams.

• $2 million to Collective Future, focused on registering Black voters in key states.

• $2 million to Swing Left, which supports Democratic volunteer efforts.

• $500,000 to Voto Latino, focused on registering young Latino and Hispanic voters.

You sure that last bit wasn't from Miguel Bloombito?

Even if you exclude the first two items (which aren't nothing), that's still about $37M in spending for some pretty good causes.

When you are worth $54,900 million, spending $37.5 million isn't "whatever it takes".

Just spitballing here but is it possible he's waiting to spend more money closer to the election?

Sure. Is it also possible he never had any real concerns here beyond ensuring the Dems didn't go left?

would you prefer he spent nothing?

I'd prefer if people like him weren't given massive exposure for self-serving comments like they'll "spend whatever it takes" to defeat Trump then get defended when its pointed out his non-personal contributions are the equivalent of someone with a net worth of $100K donating just shy of $70.

I'll take Bloomberg's millions of Howard Schultz's fuckery.

Not great?

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:49 pm Bloomberg has already spent well over $350 million for Democrats this cycle, according to his team, including the following investments:

• $275 million in anti-Trump ads during his primary campaign

• $35 million for a digital and data platform he gives to Democratic campaigns at cost.

• $18 million transferred from his campaign to the Democratic Party.

• $10 million to House Majority PAC, the lead outside group backing House Democrats.

• $5 million to Fair Fight, the voting rights group led by Stacey Abrams.

• $2 million to Collective Future, focused on registering Black voters in key states.

• $2 million to Swing Left, which supports Democratic volunteer efforts.

• $500,000 to Voto Latino, focused on registering young Latino and Hispanic voters.

It seems to me that the $275 million should never have been included, since it was money he spent during his own primary. I have no idea about the $35 million for the data platform, whether that was something he did for himself anyway, or what it means that he "gives" the platform to Dem campaigns "at cost."

The other stuff, the dollar amount isn't that impressive for a multibillionaire, but on the other hand, the election is a long way away, it isn't clear that a lot of additional spending is needed beyond what the DNC and campaigns already have, and it certainly appears that he's spending the money mostly the right way, for useful things that will pay dividends beyond this November.

This is why I was serious when I said that if the worst they can tag him with is "some say he should be spending more," he's probably not doing that bad of a job right now.

But let's see how things look in a few months.

The worst I would tag him on (in this instance) is “his entire campaign was an unveiled threat that the Dem candidate better not be left of what’s he’s comfortable with or else”.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:10 pm The worst I would tag him on (in this instance) is “his entire campaign was an unveiled threat that the Dem candidate better not be left of what’s he’s comfortable with or else”.

Sounds fair.

That pollster, Change Research, is rated C- by 538. And they have Biden up by 9 nationally, with Trump having a 49% "strong disapproval" rating in those battleground states and a 51% strong disapproval nationwide. https://www.changeresearch.com/post/sta ... nd-wave-10

Change Research's Pennsylvania result (Biden +2) was based on 382 likely voters. Yesterday, Morning Consult released a poll in Pennsylvania with more than 2000 likely voters, and the result was Biden +7 (and at 50%), plus leading in most other swing and battleground states (like Georgia and Texas). https://morningconsult.com/form/july-pr ... e-polling/

That’s better. I have no confidence of actually flipping anything in the sound so all those northern non-coastal states seem imperative.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:27 pm That’s better. I have no confidence of actually flipping anything in the sound so all those northern non-coastal states seem imperative.

I'd say Arizona is probably about 80-90 percent likely to flip. And they can't really pull too many vote-rigging/vote location shenanigans since Maricopa County has Republicans all over the place as well.

I don't feel good about Florida or North Carolina in the final analysis, so I agree -- the road the winning seems to be taking PA, MI and WI. The first two seem like safe bets at this point, the latter -- I dunno.

Landslide dudes. Book it just don't say it.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:36 pm Landslide dudes. Book it just don't say it.

Let's fucking hope so.

More on Pennsylvania.


I do think Florida and North Carolina are both winnable, as well as Arizona. Wisconsin and even Minnesota make me nervous. Those are places with just enough minorities to activate White Fear but not enough to overcome it.

Biden can broaden the map a lot if he wants to. Georgia. Texas. Probably others. Maybe not likely but those are states that Dems should be investing tons of cash for both senate goals and long term goals. Totally aside from Biden, Dems must have a plan to challenge in Georgia and Texas. Would change electoral college politics entirely if those states are in play going forward and the demographics support it. If they don't contest in an election where they have a shot they've missed a big opportunity. If nothing else that infrastructure and momentum would pay off 10x even with losses.

"I take no responsibility." [Loop]

If that's not playing 500x a day in Texas and Georgia the Dems have failed terribly.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:40 am I do think Florida and North Carolina are both winnable, as well as Arizona. Wisconsin and even Minnesota make me nervous. Those are places with just enough minorities to activate White Fear but not enough to overcome it.

If you're worried at all about White Fear, then Florida and North Carolina are absolutely unwinnable then (relative to Wisconsin and Minnesota).

So, who are our final guesses to who the VP is going to be?

I'm bad at predicting, so let's go with Susan Rice.

I'd much rather Duckworth or Warren, but Rice send to have pulled ahead in recent days if my cursory scanning of headlines is any indication.

I know nothing of Rice but I like that she wouldn't be siphoning off a mayoral or congressional seat.

Thing 1: Just a reminder, when you see states like Texas and Arizona as flippable, it means the GOP has to spend money on races it doesn't traditionally have to worry about. That's a very good thing. Even if we're pessimistic about the outcome, the fact that they are in play is a major problem for the RNC.

Thing 2: Biden signaled he wants to have a good working relationship (existing) with his Veep. Heavy thumb on the scale for Rice, from what I've been reading.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:18 pmIf we are facing a contested election or transition, even if both hypotheticals would mean no more Trump, I think the streets would look very different if the stakes were President Sanders versus President Biden.

So I didn't expect to self-quote this so early, but seems like its going to become a massive concern already. When your entire strategy is quietly back into a win versus aggressively defeating, are you going to have the numbers to fight if a fight is needed?

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:41 am

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:18 pmIf we are facing a contested election or transition, even if both hypotheticals would mean no more Trump, I think the streets would look very different if the stakes were President Sanders versus President Biden.

So I didn't expect to self-quote this so early, but seems like its going to become a massive concern already. When your entire strategy is quietly back into a win versus aggressively defeating, are you going to have the numbers to fight if a fight is needed?

Are you suggesting that Democrats will just "accept" an obviously fraudulent attempt by Trump to claim an election he didn't win with Biden as the candidate, but not if Sanders was?

That's honestly about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

If you're referring to Dem leadership, I absolutely don't think they have it in them to fight and win. But I'm referring to the country as a whole; Trump stealing from Bernie would draw a reaction that Trump stealing from Biden would not.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:50 am If you're referring to Dem leadership, I absolutely don't think they have it in them to fight and win. But I'm referring to the country as a whole; Trump stealing from Bernie would draw a reaction that Trump stealing from Biden would not.

That's fucking stupid.

ETA:

Sorry, that's fucking stupid.

At some point people are going to realize that catering to the center and obligating the left has consequences.

And just so this doesn't take too long, this is where you should ask me what I've done to personally risk myself for the better of the country, I tell you "absolutely nothing, because I've considered everything and my immediate concern is my 2 kids at home" and you follow that string until we're atleast close to the same place.

I'm not shitting on you, I'm just saying if you think people are going to accept another four years of Trump because of who the candidate is, that's fucking stupid. That's literally all I'm saying.

I think a lot of you guys really don't understand how pissed off a vast majority of Americans have been since around January of 2017. Like, every day another thing pisses them off, to the point that they have to stop paying attention because it's not healthy.

I'm with Citgo. As many of you probably know. I think this is going to be an absolute landslide.

brian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:03 am I'm not shitting on you, I'm just saying if you think people are going to accept another four years of Trump because of who the candidate is, that's fucking stupid. That's literally all I'm saying.

Do you need a list of the things people have accepted over the last 3.5 years that they (and I) would have swore we'd never accept if asked in 2014? When is the last time this board has even talked about the kids imprisoned without their parents at the border?