• 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
Look who's using Kavanaugh's treatment by the ~~~evil Left~~~ to fundraise.
"Justice Kavanaugh went through a rigorous confirmation hearing and seven FBI background checks — scouring every aspect of his life," wrote Collins. "Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters are on the verge of having to go through the pain of the confirmation process all over again. The Far Left is so determined to further their political agenda, they won't hesitate to ruin someone's life in the process."
Collins-email.png
Disgusting, vile, horrible person who needs to lose in a landslide or just fucking retire. I hate her so much.
Kennedy's from a swing seat? It's +9 and Hillary won it by more than 20 points.
LOL no.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
Her email says in BOLD PRINT, "I cast my vote for him last year, and I would do so again."

Just flaunting it and spitting in her constituents' faces and women's faces in general. And if she runs, she'll be touting her ~~~bipartisan~~~ record and probably using statements from fucking Manchin and Feinstein.

Ugh.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943
Her email says in BOLD PRINT, "I cast my vote for him last year, and I would do so again."

Just flaunting it and spitting in her constituents' faces and women's faces in general. And if she runs, she'll be touting her ~~~bipartisan~~~ record and probably using statements from fucking Manchin and Feinstein.

Ugh.
Terrified of being primaried for some fuckin reason. Also just plain evil.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,607
It's not that she's not "making it happen." It's not that she's not even trying (though she's not). It's that she's actively whipping against impeachment in almost every public statement she makes.
If Pelosi is actively whipped against impeachment then she's doing an even worse job of that given that more than half the caucus is publicly in favor of impeachment.
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,063
I really do not get Kennedy's calculus here. I am all for primarying folks. But Markey has been absolutely solid. He will have a challenge free seat once Warren is sworn in.
 
OP
OP
Ogodei

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
I really do not get Kennedy's calculus here. I am all for primarying folks. But Markey has been absolutely solid. He will have a challenge free seat once Warren is sworn in.

He's running because he knows he can win. That's about it. Typically this has to happen because the incumbent is politically bad or negligent (like in Crowley's case) because you couldn't possibly gain the edge needed to win otherwise. This is a special situation that few other people could pull off. Maybe if Chelsea Clinton tried to primary Schumer or something
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,911
I really do not get Kennedy's calculus here. I am all for primarying folks. But Markey has been absolutely solid. He will have a challenge free seat once Warren is sworn in.
If he is solid, he shouldn't have to worry about a primary challenge.

Also, if this is who Markey surrounds himself with, I'm rooting for Joe. Fucking disgusting.

 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
He's running because he knows he can win. That's about it. Typically this has to happen because the incumbent is politically bad or negligent (like in Crowley's case) because you couldn't possibly gain the edge needed to win otherwise. This is a special situation that few other people could pull off. Maybe if Chelsea Clinton tried to primary Schumer or something
Era would literally melt.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
I really do not get Kennedy's calculus here. I am all for primarying folks. But Markey has been absolutely solid. He will have a challenge free seat once Warren is sworn in.
He figures he has a better chance now primarying another white man like Markey, than he would with an open seat, which may invite more challengers, women, women of colour, like Ayanna Pressley. Another generic white guy.
"Kennedy is doing this now because there's a total logjam of talent in Massachusetts," O'Brien told Vox, citing other lawmakers like [Ayanna] Pressley, Rep. Katherine Clark, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, and even [Seth] Moulton, who might go up against Kennedy in another race.
There's some speculation now too...
Since Kennedy has already started this shitfight.
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,063

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
Also, some bitchcrackers.

I didn't realise the HRC LGBTQI+ forum was actually announced in March.

The date coincides with the eve of the 31st National Coming Out Day. So it's pretty easy to remember!

At the time of the announcement, candidates would only need 1% and 60K donors, although this seems to have been escalated to the same as the debate criteria. Certain candidates though would have known they cleared this threshold way back in March.

I don't know how anyone could no-show due to a "scheduling conflict" unless they specifically scheduled a clash...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

jtb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,065
the reason why there's a logjam of "talent" is because MA has a Republican governor that no one's particularly interested in running against, not because of Ed Markey lol
 

Madison

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,388
Lima, Peru
If he is solid, he shouldn't have to worry about a primary challenge.
This is a weird framing of elections.
Often, elections arent meritocratic and they dont happen in a vacuum.

Rick Scott is a monster and he still won Florida, Beto lost to Cruz, Al Gore, etc.

Hell, Biden is running a horrific campaign and he has a ten point lead!

In this sense, Markey losing to Kennedy in MA wouldnt have much to do with "how solid he is", you are thinking about campaigns with a level of rationality that simply isnt there for a lot of voters

Joe winning has everything to do with the fact that hes a fucking Kennedy in Kennedy Country and that means that he only has to be a mediocre white cishet to have a legitimate shot at winning
 

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,943
A lot of things about this story confuse me:

Primary at the moment being, why the desperation to bring Ayanna into this? As far I know, she hasn't said shit. Also, she just ran the same kind of "time for fresh faces" campaign against Capuano that Kennedy is gearing to make against Markey. So why would she say anything?

What's the case for Markey remaining in the Senate from the prospective of someone who doesn't particularly care he's the more progressive candidate?
 
Oct 26, 2017
7,961
South Carolina
Again, impeachment is not going to stop Trump from attempting to cheat. Like, I'm not arguing the merits of impeachment/not impeachment. But it's not like his presidential powers just stop during the impeachment trial. He'll still try to do the same shit he's doing now. Plus, the type of cheating they engaged in in 2016 really only works if things are super close. I just don't see how impeachment is going to materially change his attempts to get any and all help to win.

Also, maaaaan Warren is being sooooooo savvy with the impeachment thing. She's claiming the moral high ground, she's appealing to those who really want impeachment, she's not alienating those who aren't 100% on the impeachment train, she's being just vague enough to not be attacking other Democrats. It's freaking good politics.

Bingo.

He lives, breathes, and eats crime. Was born into it. Owned by it. He may fire the internal pollsters tha tgive him bad news, but he knows how he's polling in battleground states that's why he did it. And so like you said he will go again and again to cheating, lawbreaking, and sedition in desperation over the next 13.5 months. It is inevitable.

Not acting like this is going to happen, and ESPECIALLY to stand stronger against this rising desperation is indirectly allowing it. Standing against it wont stop him from trying, and brings everyone down. Worst case scenario given what you said isn't that it works but makes it EXPECTED and we see blatant begging or demanding of interference from foriegn companies, mafias, and spy services from now on.

And that's back to where we are with the 60-odd Dem Reps and 200 GOP reps who wont do their duty. Congress weakens, our sovereignty weakens, and the reputations of the political parties weaken and the sack of shit still loses after trashing the place with late pushback.
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,911
In this sense, Markey losing to Kennedy in MA wouldnt have much to do with "how solid he is", you are thinking about campaigns with a level of rationality that simply isnt there for a lot of voters

Joe winning has everything to do with the fact that hes a fucking Kennedy in Kennedy Country and that means that he only has to be a mediocre white cishet to have a legitimate shot at winning
I think it's doing a slight disservice to both voters and to Kennedy with that point of view.

Joe is/was considered a rising star in Congress. It's not a foregone conclusion that there is support for him not just because of his name, but he is a well liked Democratic politician. The only reason he's getting any blowback is because Markey is a darling of the progressive movement.

Furthermore, to my point about an incumbent being 'solid', do you think that he'd have the audacity to primary Warren, let alone be leading her in polls before even announcing, even with the Kennedy last name? The fact of the matter is, Markey is vulnerable because despite a 37 year career in Congress and strong progressive record, he lacks the incumbency advantage because he's as dry as burnt toast.

Look at Virginia. The only person who could successfully primary Warner or Kaine is McAuliffe.
 

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,943
Furthermore, to my point about an incumbent being 'solid', do you think that he'd have the audacity to primary Warren, let alone be leading her in polls before even announcing, even with the Kennedy last name? The fact of the matter is, Markey is vulnerable because despite a 37 year career in Congress and strong progressive record, he lacks the incumbency advantage because he's as dry as burnt toast.
That was a read.

Frankly, the borderline infantilizing of Markey has been...strange.

 

beavis

Banned
Sep 19, 2019
13
This is great. Hopefully Warren tags on to this or releases something similar soon. A little surprising she's not already pushing a plan for medical debt (and remains vague on Medicare for All 😟), considering her work around the issue in the 2000s.

 
OP
OP
Ogodei

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
I think it's doing a slight disservice to both voters and to Kennedy with that point of view.

Joe is/was considered a rising star in Congress. It's not a foregone conclusion that there is support for him not just because of his name, but he is a well liked Democratic politician. The only reason he's getting any blowback is because Markey is a darling of the progressive movement.

Furthermore, to my point about an incumbent being 'solid', do you think that he'd have the audacity to primary Warren, let alone be leading her in polls before even announcing, even with the Kennedy last name? The fact of the matter is, Markey is vulnerable because despite a 37 year career in Congress and strong progressive record, he lacks the incumbency advantage because he's as dry as burnt toast.

Look at Virginia. The only person who could successfully primary Warner or Kaine is McAuliffe.

Even McAuliffe couldn't pull it off. The incumbency advantage is strong unless you have a huge name recognition advantage, which is impossible without some major outlying factor.

Like, George Clooney could probably primary Feinstein (if CA didn't have the jungle primary system, anyway), but that's the kind of power it would take.

Maaybe George P Bush could try to tackle Cornyn or Cruz and do it successfully too.
 

Rag

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,874
You were at my wedding, Nancy.

Please encourage your wife and the server to go to the media if they are comfortable with it because holy shit
She should see if there are other witnesses of the event that will help legitimize her claim and then report it. Surely at a fundraiser all eyes would've been on Biden so someone else must have seen something.

No time for sexual harassment by anyone let alone a presidential candidate.
I'm going to talk to my wife about it tonight. This was over a month ago, if not longer, and I suspect they've moved on, but I can't stop thinking about it.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
This is something that needs to get pushed out there again.

And oh, look who the other coauthor is.

 

Plutone

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,745
Look who's using Kavanaugh's treatment by the ~~~evil Left~~~ to fundraise.

Collins-email.png
Disgusting, vile, horrible person who needs to lose in a landslide or just fucking retire. I hate her so much.

LOL no.

Fucking hell man, how can someone be so evil for money? Threw her gender under the fucking bus and is now whining about it?

I still remembered how she was so fucking GIDDY and gleeful to defend Kavanaugh in that speech. Just had the happiest time on Earth like a pig in the fuckin' mud, man.
 

dlauv

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,513


Solid music choice. \m/

The day he comes out to Everlast, I'm donating again.

edit: Slightly more relevant news.

 
Last edited:

jtb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,065
Since when has a politician who represents you being more self-promotional rather than less been an asset? Markey has low name recognition, but to dump an incumbent, you need a compelling justification. Markey's record is strong and it's in line with the electorate. I don't buy the soft polling at all other than he's never needed to spend much of his campaign war chest so his numbers are middling.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
5,215
How is Warren vague? She was the first candidate to say after the Mueller Report Trump should be impeached and that Congress should act now several months ago. Now she's saying Congress is complicit for not moving forward on impeachment several months ago. How is that vague? Seems very clear to me and she clearly put other Democrats on blast yesterday. Personally I'm not complaining because she's saying exactly what I want to hear on the issue, I just don't see the bone she's giving to the anti-impeachment crowd that you say she's giving.
Sorry to take so long to answer. I had to clean our church today.

So, she's being vague in just blaming "congress." It lets anyone read into it what they want. If you're upset at Pelosi, you can read it as a read on her. Or, if you're not yet mad at Pelosi you can read it as a read on the inaction in the Senate. It's worded precisely to give everyone what they want, without actually being antagonistic.

It's a good statement.
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,911
Since when has a politician who represents you being more self-promotional rather than less been an asset? Markey has low name recognition, but to dump an incumbent, you need a compelling justification. Markey's record is strong and it's in line with the electorate. I don't buy the soft polling at all other than he's never needed to spend much of his campaign war chest so his numbers are middling.
Hmm...well I'm thinking of someone who Trump struggles with remembering her full name...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.