• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
But really, Trump went to Michigan because he was desperate and his kids fucked around with 270towin during flights around to different campaign spots. And it worked.

Not that we'll do anything in... Oklahoma.... but seriously go elsewhere. Every dem no matter what was going to Ohio.. guarantee it

Yet there are TONS of previously thought *unwinnable red states* we actually lost by less than we lost Ohio in 2016. So numbers wise I don't think it's the stupidest thing to go to places that haven't even been campaigned in for a general since like Nixon when he visited every state against Kennedy and see if voters have a weird or unexpected reaction to it
Among those states to which you allude, only TX being closer than OH was truly surprising. We knew that GA and AZ were moving toward us. They were not "unwinnable" and no one thought they were.

We still lost OK, KS, NE, WV, MT et. al by at least 25 points.

There is no point in directing any resources to them, at least at the presidential level. None. That is loony talk.
 

Deleted member 11637

Oct 27, 2017
18,204
rsj25.jpg


monokuma.gif
 

lenovox1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,995
Didn't say it was but well, what's a formula to win Oklahoma?

Most of the state lives in large cities or surrounding metro areas and there is a large Native American population.

It is still a very white and very rural state, though. Redistributive economic policies simply won't resonate in the same way they do in states with far higher costs of living.

I find it interesting that he isn't going after blacker states, but his populist messaging does seem to click and poll well with poor whites. I still don't get why, when given the opportunity to vote for the populist that's racist or the populist that's not racist, he thinks that group would pick him. Especially among Evangelicals, where his Jewishness may actually be a liability.

https://lifewayresearch.com/2018/02/28/more-than-a-few-evangelicals-have-jewish-friends-and-family/

Another complicating factor in the relations between evangelicals and Jews: Evangelicals seem unclear about the relationship between Jews and Christians and how Jews fit into God's plan, according to the survey, which was underwritten by Chosen People Ministries and author Joel C. Rosenberg.

Just over a quarter (28 percent) embrace "supersessionism" or replacement theology—the claim that the Christian church "has fulfilled or replaced the nation of Israel in God's plan." A greater percentage, 41 percent reject that idea, while 32 percent are not sure.
 

lenovox1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,995
yeah lol

Though IF Bernie is the nominee, there is probably a lane for him to play in those state that are both high white pop but low religiosity with low relative evangelical %. Maine/Montana/Alaskas of the world. I talked about this theory that we'd overperform in a few types of these seats. We ended up only winning in ME-2, but we did really well in AK-AL and MT-AL and okay in MI-01 etc etc etc.

I think evangelicalism complicates things (see: why MO-02 is still red even though it's suburban af), but it gives you neat options. And yes I think Bernie would do very well in Iowa.

Though he'd probably underperform in Georgia/Florida/Arizona.



images

Agreed.

But those are low EV states.


I'm not surprised at all. It's just an "interesting" approach, as in not traditional.
 

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
big surprise is that Warren is the top choice here. Huh.

She hits our policy preferences almost perfectly, about as far left as you can get without crossing into full Socialism.

I prefer Kamala because her policy is fine, she has the right attitude to really tear Trump a new one, and is a younger minority. She's what I want to see for a post-Trump America.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
Mayor Pete can say whatever he wants because he's not going to need to follow through on any of it.

Maybe Gilly should take this approach.
 

Grexeno

Sorry for your ineptitude
Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,756
Pete Buttgieg, swinging for the fences in a way that only a candidate with a less than .5% chance of winning the nomination can.
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
Even if Pete doesn't win he will always be the mayor of our heart.
 
Jan 15, 2019
4,393
Pete Buttgieg, swinging for the fences in a way that only a candidate with a less than .5% chance of winning the nomination can.
Bill Clinton was a no-name candidate in '92 and even lost both Iowa and New Hampshire. It's not impossible for Buttigieg to rise up the ranks, especially with how, well, democratically the democrats are handling the debates. Although Clinton was a centrist so today's closest analogue might be, like, if John Delaney somehow won.


I like the optimism that a black woman and a gay man ticket wouldn't be a blow out loss. But maybe I'm too cynical about how shitty the US is.
Oh it's definitely tougher than, say, coronating Biden, having him tap Sherrod Brown for VP, and calling it a day. I think they'd have a lot of appeal though when the general is well underway and they're known as Kamala and Pete rather than just the black woman and the gay guy.

And as a matter of principle I don't like the idea of telling a gay man or a black woman that they can't be president because they need to, in the words of MLK, wait for a "more convenient season."
 

Touchdown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
573
John King had a round table discussion earlier today on his show about talked about a lot of the democratic candidates bringing up topics like free healthcare, affordable childcare and he kind of rolled his eyes at the subject with a smirk and said something to the effect of: "That talk might work with democratic primary voters but....where are we going to get the money for it...let's have that discussion". Meanwhile our president calls a national emergency for billions of dollars for a non-existant wall... I just....

6093a06939.gif
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
John King had a round table discussion earlier today on his show about talked about a lot of the democratic candidates bringing up topics like free healthcare, affordable childcare and he kind of rolled his eyes at the subject with a smirk and said something to the effect of: "That talk might work with democratic primary voters but....where are we going to get the money for it...let's have that discussion". Meanwhile our president calls a national emergency for billions of dollars for a non-existant wall... I just....

6093a06939.gif
Strong White Daddy Republicans are great with money and would never waste it on extravagant tax breaks for the rich.

Democrats are a bunch of emotional women and PoC and would waste money on fantasy stuff. They mean well, but they're not serious.
 

aspiegamer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,458
ZzzzzzZzzzZzz...
I'm pretty sure that, because of the current endless abuses of the system, that Trump could get away with not having a confirmation hearing for the guy via the standard shuffling procedure. A coincidence, I'm sure! Wait, do deputies even need to be confirmed? I can't remember anything anymore. Okay, let's put it another way-- When New AG Man ends up having to resign in 6 months after something hilarious, we'll have another acting AG that was effectively some random dude never meant to be or appointed for that position but is because Trump wanted him to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.