Neither does Steyer. Nowhere close.
Yet there is a common theme here spending millions on advertising does help with polling numbers and recognition
Reread back a bit. What I said, is that if you have 100% name rec, cash spending is nowhere near as effective. The people close to 100% name rec? Warren, Biden, Sanders. Not Steyer and Butti. It goes without saying that when people know you exist, they're more likely to vote for you. At the point where they don't, advertising is mighty helpful.Neither does Steyer. Nowhere close.
Yet there is a common theme here spending millions on advertising does help with polling numbers and recognition
Reread back a bit. What I said, is that if you have 100% name rec, cash spending is nowhere near as effective. The people close to 100% name rec? Warren, Biden, Sanders. Not, Steyer and Butti. It goes without saying that when people know you exist, they're more likely to vote for you. At the point where they don't, advertising is mighty helpful.
People already know who Biden and Sanders are. It's correct that plastering Iowa with ads is going to have diminishing returns the more people recognise you.
Kevin McCarthy is one of the dumbest mofos in Congress.
It's a picture of that dumbass map of the U.S. that's nearly all red - because in Steveland, it's the land that votes.
Edit: ratio'd!
A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president's action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter. The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump's doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is "corrupt intent" and echoed Kennedy's argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy."To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation," Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. "To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I've been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind."The discussion underscores the dilemma for congressional Republicans as a cadre of current and former Trump administration officials paint a consistent picture of a president wiling to use foreign policy to undercut a potential domestic political adversary. On Thursday, Trump appointee and longtime Republican aide-turned-National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison became the latest official to testify that nearly $400 million of congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was frozen to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, a 2020 presidential contender.And with the House Democrats voting Thursday to open the closed-door impeachment investigation, undermining the GOP's complaints about a secretive process, Republicans are frantically seeking a new strategy and talking points to defend the president.
Kevin McCarthy is one of the dumbest mofos in Congress.
It's a picture of that dumbass map of the U.S. that's nearly all red - because in Steveland, it's the land that votes.
Edit: ratio'd!
No, I'm suggesting that Biden was friends with James Eastland and still likes him to this day so Biden personally took the "I'm a card carrying democrat who wants to help all other democrats" thing that his staffer mentioned maybe a bit too farAre you suggesting that everyone who voted for southern democrats in the 50s, 60s and 70s were segregationists?
My point is that Biden can sit on his ass and barely spend anything until election day and still have a good chance at winning. And Sanders could spend a trillion dollars on ads and be in the same spot he is now. Warren isn't quite as saturated, but she's close, fortunately for her she's in a position to win at this point. If Butti was at 100% name rec? I dunno where he'd be, because he isn't.And while Pete, Sanders, Warren, Yang campaign in Iowa - Biden will spending time trying to raise money for SC, CA, NY... where? certainly not in Iowa
Has Pete's AA numbers gone up? Without that, he's the Robin to Biden's Batman.
https://twitter.com/drmistercody/status/1190420559596679168?s=19
"But it wasn't CORRUPT Quid Pro Quo."
I know Ben Shapiro should just be ignored, but his adept ability of self-owning is just remarkable
And umm unlike her, he didn't qualify for the next debate and was actually polling 0% in some of the early states.
I always enjoy PoliEra comparing Kamala to the candidate bottom feeders when there are 3-4 other candidates that should quit before her. She's still at 4-6% in a lot of polls. Not saying things look good for her, but comparing her to bottom feeders while not asking people like Castro, Booker, Klob, Bennet, Steyer, Yang, and pre-signal boosted Tulsi to drop out is annoying.
This marks a new phase in American politics. Democrats and Republicans might still disagree about policy, but they are increasingly also at odds over the very foundations of our constitutional order.
Political scientists have a term for what the United States is witnessing right now. It's called "regime cleavage," a division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing system itself—in the American case, our constitutional democracy. In societies facing a regime cleavage, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions and laws may be ignored, subverted or replaced.
Regime cleavages emerge only in governing systems in crisis, and our democracy is indeed in crisis.
This cleavage shows up in discourse across the American political spectrum that labels one's political opponents as un-American, disloyal, even treasonous. But it is clearest in the argument that it would amount to a "coup" to remove the president via conviction in the Senate, and thus that the regular functioning of the legislative branch would be illegitimate.
In the minds of Trump, his allies and, increasingly, his supporters, it's not just Democrats but American democracy that is the obstacle.
This, in turn, creates a form of outbidding: Even if Democrats oppose an unfettered executive now, they will have every incentive to use whatever presidential powers are available to them when they do hold the White House. This has already begun to happen in the U.S. to some extent: Competition over an unconstrained executive branch, of course, motivated Republicans to oppose President Barack Obama, who also capitalized on the long-term increase in executive authority in the United States.
Our regime cleavage has not yet hardened to the extent that it has in these countries, but if it does, it will not be possible to elect a president who can "end the mess in Washington" because both sides of the regime cleavage will argue that the other is illegitimate and undemocratic. Voters, understandably, will lose what faith they have left in the value of democracy itself. In the worst-case scenario, presidents and their supporters would be entirely unaccountable to Congress, while their opponents would reject the legitimacy of the presidency altogether.
A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president's action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter. The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump's doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is "corrupt intent" and echoed Kennedy's argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy."To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation," Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. "To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I've been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind."The discussion underscores the dilemma for congressional Republicans as a cadre of current and former Trump administration officials paint a consistent picture of a president wiling to use foreign policy to undercut a potential domestic political adversary. On Thursday, Trump appointee and longtime Republican aide-turned-National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison became the latest official to testify that nearly $400 million of congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was frozen to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, a 2020 presidential contender.And with the House Democrats voting Thursday to open the closed-door impeachment investigation, undermining the GOP's complaints about a secretive process, Republicans are frantically seeking a new strategy and talking points to defend the president.
The goalposts will be to Pluto by December with all of these chucklefucks.
And umm unlike her, he didn't qualify for the next debate and was actually polling 0% in some of the early states.
I always enjoy PoliEra comparing Kamala to the candidate bottom feeders when there are 3-4 other candidates that should quit before her. She's still at 4-6% in a lot of polls. Not saying things look good for her, but comparing her to bottom feeders while not asking people like Castro, Booker, Klob, Bennet, Steyer, Yang, and pre-signal boosted Tulsi to drop out is annoying.
And he also ended with his "Beat him like drum" catchphrase lol. He makes it sound like Trump is only reason he's running.Lol Biden's speech was so fucking bad. Literally just GET TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE! RESTORE THE SOUL OF AMERICA! Trump is the only obstacle, then the road is clear for change! (paraphrasing)
You suck, please don't win, thank you
He really said it twice too. He is truly awful off script.And also ended with his "Beat him like drum" catchphrase lol. He makes it sound like Trump is only reason he's running.
Lol it's the first I've seen of it. He was singing the lyrics, so fucking cringeyDidn't he do that at an event earlier this year too?
He's still using it?
I mean I love the song, but dude...
Yeah I misread your post a bit. He walked out to the song at least once earlier this year. Dunno if he sang that time. Embarrassing.Lol it's the first I've seen of it. He was singing the lyrics, so fucking cringey
The Kamala loathing is strong on Era. It's Kamala eating crackers all day.
What streams are you guys watching? I'm watching the NBC News one on YouTube and it's very echoey
Ah. Guess I'll just have to deal with it. Thanks
No I agree. She is a poor campaigner as is Beto a poor debater. She does get unnecessarily piled on fire since reason though.Speak for yourself, I like Harris.
I'd certainly rather hear from Kamala in a debate than Amy Downer.
But her campaign suuuuuuuuucks. Sorry if that's hard for you to hear
Him being one of the dumbest mofos in Congress means he is perfect to lead the House Republican caucus of stooges.
During a City Council meeting Monday night, City Councilor George Rotondo threatened to "beat the s*** out of" a critic, who he accused of harassing his family.
Rotondo — who has recently been accused by Muslim rights groups and a fellow Revere city council candidate of making Islamophobic and anti-immigrant attacks — was requesting a state investigation into a public records request in September about a years-old "domestic event" involving his children, which he said was a politically motivated attempt to "harass" and "discredit" him.
"If they're going after my kids to get to me — I'm a public official. It's disgusting," he said, calling for an investigation from the Massachusetts State Police and state auditor's office into Revere police's procedures for fulfilling public information requests.
Rotondo then turned to Brian Riccio, a local political activist in attendance at the meeting.
"And you sir, if you go near my kid again, I'm going to beat the s*** out of you," Rotondo said. "You got me?"
City Council President Arthur Guinasso objected to the threat, pounding his gavel. Rotondo went on.
"I'm sorry," he said. "I'm sick of Mr. Riccio going near my kid. I'm sorry. This should not stand. I'm sick of the harassment from him, online, bullying my kid. My kid is in fear because of you, sir. You're a disgrace."
Rotondo apologized again to the hearing room, and Guinasso said his motion would be referred to the committee on legislative affairs.
"At this point, it's bordering on harassment," Rotondo said.
In a Twitter message, Riccio said a supporter of Rotondo was spreading false innuendo in an attempt to deflect from Rotondo's own political vulnerability in the coming election.
"He's about to lose his seat," Riccio said. "That outburst at the City Council came after he was told that only 15-20 people were appearing at his fundraiser."
Rotondo is one of four at-large councilors seeking re-election to one of the five council seats. He placed third in the city's preliminary elections in September.
She just confirmed for me, that if she wants to, she can go there.