• 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.

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,607
Yeah calling out the farmer bailouts is a recipe for disaster. It IS super hypocritical of Republicans/Trump to do that but it plays off so bad as to say "Trump is being so bad giving those handouts to farmers!"

Attacking giant corporations/billionaires is one of the few things that is deemed acceptable by the electorate and so they gotta take what they can get.
Doesn't a substantial amount of the bailouts go to corporate farms? He can and should be attacked on that
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,912
Trump probably won't be explicitly homophobic (but he's dumb enough to do so). But I'm sure conservative media will make it a point to hammer at Chasten and always show them together to not so subtly remind people that Buttigieg is gay. It's so shitty (and Chasten seems like a great guy and the better of the two Buttigiegs, lol)
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,815
Trump wouldn't need to attack Pete for being gay. He's basically the living embodiment of "The Swamp".

"Wall Street Pete folks... he had his Democrat buddies rig the primaries for him! Poor crazy Bernie"

Naw... the other points raised were valid but I have had hard time getting Pete is the creature of "The Swamp" to stick. Pete is a complete outsider and hasn't worked in D.C. a single day. It'lll be hard to paint a small-time mayor as a creature of The Swamp. I know these "Wall Street Pete" attacks work in a DEM primary, but that's not really a big deal in GE. For a lot of people (especially conservatives) being able to raise money from Wall Street is considered a good thing. It's not like Trump is disavowing Wall-Street money himself, so if he does do that, that attack will fall completely flat.

I think what the others mentioned is more likely, blatant homophobia. And the media will be stunned at first but then just say, "It's Trump being Trump."
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
Aren't most farms in the US now owned by corporations? Or at least some way managed by them?
There are layers here, the biggest of which is that farmers are over-represented in the electoral college which favors land over people. So a person working on a corporate farm or even the section of privately owned farms have outsized voices in the electorate. That and rural towns whose income relies on farming jobs have a knockdown effect.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
It doesn't matter if it's not salient to voters, lol.

Five large fishing families held a third of the UK fishing quota. But the plight of small fishermen was used as a weird cudgel for Brexiters.

The same thing would happen with farmers. People have some sort of romantic nostalgia for these old vocations.
 

Deleted member 176

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
37,160
Naw... the other points raised were valid but I have had hard time getting Pete is the creature of "The Swamp" to stick. Pete is a complete outsider and hasn't worked in D.C. a single day. It'lll be hard to paint a small-time mayor as a creature of The Swamp. I know these "Wall Street Pete" attacks work in a DEM primary, but that's not really a big deal in GE. For a lot of people (especially conservatives) being able to raise money from Wall Street is considered a good thing. It's not like Trump is disavowing Wall-Street money himself, so if he does do that, that attack will fall completely flat.

I think what the others mentioned is more likely, blatant homophobia. And the media will be stunned at first but then just say, "It's Trump being Trump."
He's funded by billionaires. He worked for a consulting company. He's friends with Mark Zuckerberg and went to Harvard. His staff is so pervasively democratic party regulars that less informed people think it's part of a conspiracy. He's as establishment as you can get.
 

bluexy

Comics Enabler & Freelance Games Journalist
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
14,514
Iowa Update -- "Officially," Buttigieg gets 14 delegates and Sanders gets 12.

" Nearly a full week after the Iowa caucuses, the state Democratic Party on Sunday released results indicating that Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., was the winner after data from 95 problematic precincts got a second look. But errors in the result tabulations have led several news organizations, including The New York Times, to refrain from calling the race. "

www.nytimes.com

Iowa Democrats Give Buttigieg the Most Delegates as Sanders Team Seeks Recanvass (Published 2020)

Errors in the results have led The Times and others to refrain from calling the race, and the Sanders campaign manager said a partial recanvass of precincts could change the outcome.
 

patientzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,729
Aren't most farms in the US now owned by corporations? Or at least some way managed by them?

fivethirtyeight.com

Even Mega-Farms Are Mostly Family Owned

You’re reading Back of the Envelope, an experiment that aims to bring shorter, quicker content to FiveThirtyEight. Farms are getting bigger and the smallest far…

Even big farms are usually family-owned. Of farms with gross annual sales of $1 million or more, 94 percent are family farms. Of farms with 10,000 acres or more, 86 percent are family businesses. Nor is this a situation where a tiny fraction of non-family farms own most of the land or produce an outsized portion of our food. For both stats, non-family farms represent less than 10 percent of the total. What's more, the balance of power between corporate and family farms hasn't changed much during the decades when farms got more and more massive.
 
Feb 14, 2018
3,083
The fact that Steyer is polling well in SC just because he dumped a ton of money into ads there makes me wonder just how hard Bernie, Pete, and Warren really tried there considering they were the best fundraisers in the field. Obviously they don't have Bloomberg resources but surely they could have competed with Steyer.
 

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
The fact that Steyer is polling well in SC just because he dumped a ton of money into ads there makes me wonder just how hard Bernie, Pete, and Warren really tried there considering they were the best fundraisers in the field. Obviously they don't have Bloomberg resources but surely they could have competed with Steyer.

One observed data point from Iowa is that Steyer's airwave dominance translated very poorly to actual votes, and that's something I believe will carry forward and why Bloomberg probably won't go anywhere.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,815
He's funded by billionaires. He worked for a consulting company. He's friends with Mark Zuckerberg and went to Harvard. His staff is so pervasively democratic party regulars that less informed people think it's part of a conspiracy. He's as establishment as you can get.

Again, "meh". You could say the same thing about Obama. He knew tons of rich celebrities and went to Harvard.

Again I think you're looking at it through the lens of the Democratic Primary competing against Sanders / Warren. Having rich donors, knowing rich people, and going to Harvard doesn't automatically equal the swamp, especially when the person hasn't worked a day in Washington.

"The Swamp" tag sticks when it appears someone has done corrupt deals or appears to be using their position of power for self-dealing. For example, the Clinton Foundation fed into the perception of "The Swamp" because it gave off the appearance the Clinton's we're using both their power and status to attract rich / foreign donors to enrich "the charity" and exchange the donor would get some favor down the line. That was the accusation at least.

Obama had nothing like that and Pete has nothing like that. Sure Trump can say whatever he wants, but we're talking about smears that will actually stick in the GE.
 
Oct 27, 2017
17,973
Iowa Update -- "Officially," Buttigieg gets 14 delegates and Sanders gets 12.

" Nearly a full week after the Iowa caucuses, the state Democratic Party on Sunday released results indicating that Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., was the winner after data from 95 problematic precincts got a second look. But errors in the result tabulations have led several news organizations, including The New York Times, to refrain from calling the race. "

www.nytimes.com

Iowa Democrats Give Buttigieg the Most Delegates as Sanders Team Seeks Recanvass (Published 2020)

Errors in the results have led The Times and others to refrain from calling the race, and the Sanders campaign manager said a partial recanvass of precincts could change the outcome.

Now That's What I Call A Caucus, Vol. 46!

At least everyone knows for sure, now. About caucuses, that is.
 

bluexy

Comics Enabler & Freelance Games Journalist
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
14,514
Now That's What I Call A Caucus, Vol. 46!

At least everyone knows for sure, now. About caucuses, that is.
I TOLD YOU MAN

I TOLD YOU ABOUT CAUCUSES

tumblr_lhrvz6LPWw1qe3twro1_500.gif
 

GrapeApes

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,491

twitter.com

Annie Linskey on Twitter

“Warren asked by a voter who will look at her fondly and unquestioningly, essentially "who will be your Mike Pence"? "I already have a dog," Warren quips.”

Yas Democratically Elected Legislator.
 

TheFatOne

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,898
The fact that Steyer is polling well in SC just because he dumped a ton of money into ads there makes me wonder just how hard Bernie, Pete, and Warren really tried there considering they were the best fundraisers in the field. Obviously they don't have Bloomberg resources but surely they could have competed with Steyer.
It's not just the money. He's been in SC holding events, and meeting with communities for a couple of months now. It's like a reverse Pete strategy. Pete went all in on Iowa, and Steyer has gone all in on SC.
 

Plinko

Member
Oct 28, 2017
18,564
They should reward Iowa by invalidating all results. If you screw it up this badly, nobody gets anything.
 
Oct 25, 2017
13,127

twitter.com

Sahil Kapur on Twitter

“Obama’s former car czar Steve Rattner praises Pete Buttigieg: "Finally, a Democratic presidential candidate acknowledges that the deficit/debt is a huge problem that will need to be dealt with." https://t.co/tpnJppeslM”

lol
 

NihonTiger

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,512
Honestly, the thing about Iowa that scares me the most is the thought that they've been fucking up the results all this time and we've been none the wiser to it.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,607
One observed data point from Iowa is that Steyer's airwave dominance translated very poorly to actual votes, and that's something I believe will carry forward and why Bloomberg probably won't go anywhere.
Steyer barely registered in the Iowa polls though. While he's actually second in SC now.
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,616

twitter.com

Annie Linskey on Twitter

“Warren asked by a voter who will look at her fondly and unquestioningly, essentially "who will be your Mike Pence"? "I already have a dog," Warren quips.”

Yas Democratically Elected Legislator.

Damn Warren why you gotta egg on Bailey like that?


Also I see the Iowa drama before me but will not use any more brain cells on it. Thank you.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
27,956
It's amazing how we went from former President Bill Clinton speaking to Loretta Lynch for 20 minutes on the tarmac at an airport being a massive, massive scandal, to President Trump's private attorney having a direct line to the AG to feed them dirt on election rivals, and I bet it won't even be 1/10th the scandal Clinton had. So many scandals and crimes getting normalized now.
 

Teggy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,892
I'm really curious how the "serious republicans" view the trump years right now (basically all the republicans who ran in the 2016 primary and lost, and similar). Are they simply ecstatic at their court gains and tax cuts, or do they have any serious concerns that they have traded gains for an even more racist, male base.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,970
I'm really curious how the "serious republicans" view the trump years right now (basically all the republicans who ran in the 2016 primary and lost, and similar). Are they simply ecstatic at their court gains and tax cuts, or do they have any serious concerns that they have traded gains for an even more racist, male base.

On another forums, they're not happy with Trump but totally cool with court gains. It sort of evens out for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.