|
I'll bite. Evil Lady Hillrod-Lannister-Clinton better loving win unless y'all like the thought of Roger Ailes, the tea party and Pence picking a bunch of fundie freepers for every cabinet position and judge appointment let alone what kind of horrible poo poo they'll cook up with congress just so a small but potentially important block of voters can vote for crazy cat lady, a libertarian, or just get baked and stay home. I'm in Cal   so it doesn't matter - but for other states and for the popular vote needing to be overwhelming and for possibly upsetting a few GOP congressional seats it does.
Keyser_Soze fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Sep 25, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
William F Cuckley posted:I don't think it's that so much as for some dumb reason they still think they need the votes of people they really shouldn't bother with persuading. It's both and they coincide with one another. People in the Democratic establishment camp believe that the Republicans are all insane (which isn't too far from the truth), and thus anyone who is opposed to their ideals HAVE to vote for the Democrats. Whether you are to the left of the party or are a "moderate". You are dumb for not voting for the Democratic Party because it is by far the more sensible party, regardless if your choice is to vote third party or stay at home. "Not casting a vote in favor of the Democratic Party is a vote for Republicans." I could argue whether or not I agree with the tactics of voting third party or sitting out the vote, but that's for another conversation. To continue on with my point, people will then counter the Democrats reasoning by saying "if you want my vote you have to earn it!", to which most in the establishment shake their heads. This is because ever since the 1990s the party has followed the strategy of being as inoffensive as possible and "capturing the center". Bill Clinton broke the Democrats losing streak and most believed that it was because he ran on a much more "moderate" platform which was very appealing to centrists, including right leaning ones. Since then the Democratic Party has always took this strategy in order to capture this lightning in a bottle moment. The result has ranged from mediocre to an utter disaster. While Bill's presidential run was successful the next two candidates failed. How one loses to George W. Bush is quite a mystery, but both Democratic candidates who did just that are to this day mocked for how monotone and "boring" they were. The Democrats managed to break the streak with Obama who was young, energetic, and made it quite clear on which "side" he stood on. The result was one of the greatest Democratic victories in modern history. To be fair the Recession was a big reason for that, but regardless the results were nothing to sneeze at. Despite this, the party has learned absolutely nothing. In previous election during 2014 they got lambasted out of the Senate. Yes losing seats was all but inevitable, but they lost more than they should have. The biggest criticism was that the party attempted to capture the center-right "moderate" voters. Many of them even ran against Obama. The media criticized this as this route was stupid for a myrid of reasons. The result was that the party got trounced at the polls, with all of the anti-Obama types losing horrendously. What really put salt in the wound however is that many of these GOP winning states passed referendums that are solidly part of the Democratic platform, which overwhelmingly passed. Which begs the question, instead of running on a campaign of being "Republican Lite", why not just run on the issues that are popular in the state that align with your parties platform? A notable minimum wage increase seems awfully Democratic yet instead of pushing it heavily they decided to run away from it. When this pointed out, Democrats immediately get defensive and state that you can't run as a "progressive" in these states, when in reality these measures were overwhelmingly supported by the population and just merely standing by a wage increase doesn't make one Elizabeth Warren. So pushing them is a no brainer. Barrack Obama was so successful because he ran on a platform of inspiring and motivating people to vote. He didn't bother in "meeting in the middle" to appeal to the undecided voters, he convinced them through his message and platform. The modern Democratic establishment is a huge contrast to this. Whether they like it or not, Hillary Clinton has a horrible messaging problem. She presents herself as being the inoffensive choice and is running on a platform of "not Trump". But that doesn't encourage people to vote for you. It alienates the left because they see her not taking many of their issues seriously, it alienates the moderates because they don't trust her, and she alienates the right leaning voters because they recently saw her reach out to the other two groups. As a result, two third party candidates are likely to snag a record amount of third party votes in modern electoral history (especially if one discounts 1992). The reason for this is clear, the Democrats don't seem to inspire or motivate people to vote for them, and instead keep trying to chase people who never will. Nobody who votes Republican in the modern era is going to vote for Hillary or really any other Democrat. Nobody is going to not vote for Trump due to advertising his bigotry, everyone in the country knows about his quirks. Rather than realizing this many in the Democratic establishment are doubling down and they are already spinning Hillary's poor performance on those pesky third party voters (just like they did with Gore). This completely ignores the fact that Donald Trump should have been a shoe in for any Democratic candidate. And the fact that it seems to be competitive so far signals that there is something very very wrong with what the Democratic Party is doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Negatives about Trump are positives for Trump in a way we've never seen before. Mitt Romney gets hit with the 47% comment which hurt him badly. Trump says he could shoot someone in the street and his supporters wouldn't care and he does better for it. But for some reason the DNC can't understand that. Honestly, that pisses me off more than either Hillary or Trump winning the general. The fact that these people can't see the most obvious truth in politics in my lifetime. It's like watching a toddler play whack-a-mole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Super Deuce posted:Negatives about Trump are positives for Trump in a way we've never seen before. Mitt Romney gets hit with the 47% comment which hurt him badly. Trump says he could shoot someone in the street and his supporters wouldn't care and he does better for it. But for some reason the DNC can't understand that. Honestly, that pisses me off more than either Hillary or Trump winning the general. The fact that these people can't see the most obvious truth in politics in my lifetime. It's like watching a toddler play whack-a-mole. For years the Republican party has been criticized of living in a bubble, some sort of false reality and isn't in touch with the American public. While that is certainly true, it is also true with the Democratic party. Regardless if you believe that the Clinton's "moderate the party" strategy was correct to take during the time, the '90s are far over. It's a different world and one that is far more divided, hostile, and fragmented. Being the most "reasonable" person in the room will no longer win you elections. What pisses me off is that the party constantly chases the wrong enemies as well, which they use to blame the parties underperformance. Gerrymandering is an ideal example of this. While it certainly is a problem, it is not the reason why Democrats are so stacked against Republicans. The real reason is that House members aren't proportional to where the population resides, thus having cities far under-represented while rural areas far over-represented. A push for a more proportional House would do miracles in solving the issue. Unfortunately the party is either too scared, naive, or both to take that on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
They really need to update the theme song. Don't know why but it's so so dated and grating now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Bill Clinton broke the Democrats losing streak and most believed that it was because he ran on a much more "moderate" platform which was very appealing to centrists, including right leaning ones. It would've been interesting to see how things transpired if Perot was not involved in 1992. He received nearly 20,000,000 votes! punk rebel ecks posted:How one loses to George W. Bush is quite a mystery, but both Democratic candidates who did just that are to this day mocked for how monotone and "boring" they were. Well, he lost the popular vote to Gore in 2000 and then was in the midst of major battles/wars in 2004 as supreme military hero. I wasn't shocked. We needed GWB to defeat Al Qaeda and Osama and Saddam Hussein and clean up Iraq and turn it into US state #51 and restore religious harmony or something goofy like that... GWB also said we'd be sending guys to Mars at this point IIRC. punk rebel ecks posted:The Democrats managed to break the streak with Obama who was young, energetic, and made it quite clear on which "side" he stood on. The result was one of the greatest Democratic victories in modern history. He made it quite clear which side he said he stood on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVS8-1KwS2c punk rebel ecks posted:Which begs the question, instead of running on a campaign of being "Republican Lite", why not just run on the issues that are popular in the state that align with your parties platform? Because the Democratic establishment is Republican-lite in a lot of areas. It'd look bad if they gave lip service to a lot of things and then reneged. punk rebel ecks posted:As a result, two third party candidates are likely to snag a record amount of third party votes in modern electoral history (especially if one discounts 1992). Yes, I'm interested to see how much all the others get and also what exact voter participation rates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Anthony Weiner is amazing. I bet those guys from the To Catch a Predator show could've snagged him at this point. Sadly the show was discontinued because guys kept killing themselves after appearances. Super Deuce posted:Bill's last new rule this week could have been okay if he left it broad and not specifically something he doesn't understand at all. I'm looking forward to the election being over so I can stop hearing a new guest talk about Trump ending the world with nukes every...single...show. Max Brooks had the job this week. If Trump wins the election are the guests going to continue talking about Trump blowing the planet up for four straight years? Hopefully they'll save it for 2020. I'm anticipating Sean Penn giving a funeral dirge this Friday night and talking very dourly about the existential threat of a Trump presidency. punk rebel ecks posted:For years the Republican party has been criticized of living in a bubble, some sort of false reality and isn't in touch with the American public. While that is certainly true, it is also true with the Democratic party. It's a fact that everyone lives in a bubble and in their own little world. The country grows by millions of people each year. The planet gains like 88 million people per year. So naturally the entire planet becomes a more complex place every single day. But that doesn't stop pundits, economists and other experts in trying to succinctly summarize the whole enchilada. People talk about "two Americas" a lot. No, there are actually 325+ million Americas and each person is in their own. punk rebel ecks posted:Being the most "reasonable" person in the room will no longer win you elections. What pisses me off is that the party constantly chases the wrong enemies as well, which they use to blame the parties underperformance. Gerrymandering is an ideal example of this. While it certainly is a problem, it is not the reason why Democrats are so stacked against Republicans. The real reason is that House members aren't proportional to where the population resides, thus having cities far under-represented while rural areas far over-represented. A push for a more proportional House would do miracles in solving the issue. Unfortunately the party is either too scared, naive, or both to take that on. I think some new issues will just crop up. It used to be that some would talk about how the evil, rich, wealthy, dastardly Republicans had the $$$ advantage. It was only four years ago that people were talking about R-Money despite Obama receiving and spending a ton of cash in '08 and '12. Well, now HRC is outspending Trump by a huge margin and all that talk dried up. punk rebel ecks posted:It's a different world and one that is far more divided, hostile, and fragmented. Different world from when? punk rebel ecks posted:Nobody who votes Republican in the modern era is going to vote for Hillary or really any other Democrat. Nobody is going to not vote for Trump due to advertising his bigotry, everyone in the country knows about his quirks. According to Maureen Dowd, GHWB does throw his shoes at his TV when Trump appears and will be voting for HRC in a couple months. Having one party retain control of a branch of gov't for a long time is hard to do because people get fed up and disillusioned when all the promises made don't come to fruition. Political leaders promise the sun, moon and the stars on the campaign trail and then once elected deliver little of it and blame the other guys (other parties). Trump is bringing "fresh ideas" to the forefront that haven't been so loudly proclaimed for a while now in mainstream US. It's all new and exciting to a lot of people. Voters looking toward HRC are hearing platitudes more in line with Obama and Bill and many are disillusioned with that stuff. In 2024 after eight hypothetical years of Trump most people will be really, really tired of his BS once they realize he did very little he actually promised. As far as their debates it left me wanting more. It was like watching two billionaires argue at a village hall over their personal minutiae and other backyard-level gossip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I'm anticipating Sean Penn giving a funeral dirge this Friday night and talking very dourly about the existential threat of a Trump presidency. if anything given the week so far he's probably gonna be overly giddy about trump's ongoing implosion or maybe he'll pull a michael moore and cry about how hillary totally lost and trump is invincible. who knows
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:For years the Republican party has been criticized of living in a bubble, some sort of false reality and isn't in touch with the American public. While that is certainly true, it is also true with the Democratic party. Regardless if you believe that the Clinton's "moderate the party" strategy was correct to take during the time, the '90s are far over. It's a different world and one that is far more divided, hostile, and fragmented. Being the most "reasonable" person in the room will no longer win you elections. Bernie doing as well as he did should have taught them that being boring centrists was not what the base actually wants (because who else votes in primaries) but of course they've failed to take notice beyond some lip service to college debt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Bernie doing as well as he did should have taught them that being boring centrists was not what the base actually wants (because who else votes in primaries) but of course they've failed to take notice beyond some lip service to college debt. the last thing any elected democrat wants is to actually have to accomplish something
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Oh drat!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It would've been interesting to see how things transpired if Perot was not involved in 1992. He received nearly 20,000,000 votes! IIRC, weren't his voters evenly split between Democrats and Republicans? IRQ posted:Bernie doing as well as he did should have taught them that being boring centrists was not what the base actually wants (because who else votes in primaries) but of course they've failed to take notice beyond some lip service to college debt. As I said, the establishment base is in a bubble at least as much as the more "fiery" portions if the American left. For months the more extreme segments of the pro-Hillary side presented the narrative of how important the House was, and how Sanders didn't care about to do so because of reasons. Now, it is looking like the Democrats may lose the Senate again and apparently now not just the House but the Senate was a lost cause to begin with. Remember in 2014 when those who aligned with the Democratic establishment stated that 2014 is pointless and we should focus on 2016 instead because it is an election year and should be a "shoe-in"? The blatant cheerleading behind the party is obnoxious. Alec Bald Snatch posted:the last thing any elected democrat wants is to actually have to accomplish something This needs to be posted in every page, in every thread that involves the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:As I said, the establishment base is in a bubble at least as much as the more "fiery" portions if the American left. For months the more extreme segments of the pro-Hillary side presented the narrative of how important the House was, and how Sanders didn't care about to do so because of reasons. Now, it is looking like the Democrats may lose the Senate again and apparently now not just the House but the Senate was a lost cause to begin with. Remember in 2014 when those who aligned with the Democratic establishment stated that 2014 is pointless and we should focus on 2016 instead because it is an election year and should be a "shoe-in"? The blatant cheerleading behind the party is obnoxious. well it certainly hasn't helped downticket races that the clinton campaign decided to treat trump separate from the gop at large i get why they're doing it; thinking that they'll have to work with some of these people come january but they're being extremely naive in assuming that congressional republicans are gonna have any more flex with her than they did with obama
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
I'm glad Max Brooks corroborated why Obama won't come on the show. Real Time isn't "tame, safe and focus-grouped." I feel his autonomous car hack fears are overblown. Yea, it may happen on a small scale but not on a global pandemonic level. The car software would be too disparate. Just like some evil hacker can't break into and control the billions of computers around the globe simultaneously. They're are way too many different operating systems. Alec Bald Snatch posted:if anything given the week so far he's probably gonna be overly giddy about trump's ongoing implosion I don't know for certain but his normal temperament is usually doom and gloom so I'd lean toward that. I'd like to see an exit poll done. Trump or global warming: Select the bigger threat. punk rebel ecks posted:IIRC, weren't his voters evenly split between Democrats and Republicans? Probably close enough but it's impossible to be sure on things like that. His mere presence changed how things were that year. Polls do not capture elections perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
i wonder how much the islamic state would charge to kidnap and behead stephen moore
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Is Stephen Moore the most annoying guest that's ever been on this show? Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
watched this episode 20 minutes ago and cant even remember what stupid poo poo Sean penn was plugging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:Is Stephen Moore the most annoying guest that's ever been on this show? Holy poo poo. He's really bad. Can we just always have Michael Steele for the panel Republican? He at least has a sense of humor and a brain and is capable of saying things that aren't talking points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:Is Stephen Moore the most annoying guest that's ever been on this show? Holy poo poo. It'd be great if Bill had Cornell West on every time he invited Stephen Moore. Love that guy. You know who else I love? Sarah Silverman. Even when she's being absurd, she's still kinda classy about it. Like, put them on either side of Moore, and bring out someone like Neil deGrass Tyson at the end. This is my perfect panel. Maybe he could open the show up with Barrack Obama too, or Donald Trump himself instead of some proxy. That'd be nice. I also want a pony for Christmas Santa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
The lack of OT this week is especially odious as there was clearly a non-zero chance, and steadily rising at that, for Rye to straight up uppercut Moore out of his chair to thunderous applause and Sarah probably producing a rose out of seemingly nowhere for her in adulation. I did take issue with Maher falling into his own drat false equivalency trap by acting like his own initial* yelling is what set off the chain reaction----nobody had an issue until Moore made an utter loud/interrupting rear end out of himself, missed a golden opportunity to call his sorry existence out and maybe just cut his mic for once to really put a finer point on it. Next week at least has more folks of the Silverman tier of Real Time guests as far as people who tend to not ruin shows. If we want fantasy guests opposite Moore, how about the (ghost?) of that Lesko(?) guy from the government grant commercials/infomercials from times of yore in the Question Mark Suit that Moore is essentially some kind of bizarro doppelganger of?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Sarah Silverman should be on every week She should be the host
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Sarah Silverman should be on every week 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Sarah Silverman should be on every week That's definitely one way to get me to stop watching.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Super Deuce posted:That's definitely one way to get me to stop watching. heh heh, i concur. norm macdonald would own, bring a little GBS to HBO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
It's interesting that Gary Johnson is polling ~30% for the 18-34 vote. What's the explanation to that? IIRC that's the age range that's least likely to show up. SeANMcBAY posted:Is Stephen Moore the most annoying guest that's ever been on this show? Holy poo poo. The basic strategy is to roll out the most annoying Republican panelists in the month leading up to the election to antagonize voters. banned from Starbucks posted:watched this episode 20 minutes ago and cant even remember what stupid poo poo Sean penn was plugging. Bob Honey Who Just Do Stuff. "A book about a psychopath who makes more sense than US political leaders in 2016. Also, Donald Trump is a 12 year old psychopath." -Sean Penn Solvent posted:Maybe he could open the show up with Barrack Obama too, or Donald Trump himself instead of some proxy. The panel was supposed to be Donald Trump, Obama and HRC. But they all refuse to appear on the show. I wonder why...
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It's interesting that Gary Johnson is polling ~30% for the 18-34 vote. What's the explanation to that? Hillary can't get anyone enthusiastic about her except other old women and Trump is Trump. Also Gary Johnson smokes weed, and if you're a particularly dumb and/or grossly ill-informed former Bernie supporter the 50% of things that lolbertarians don't sound completely insane about sound good, if you ignore the really crazy poo poo. But yes, young people tend to just not show up, especially the sort of demographic I just mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It's interesting that Gary Johnson is polling ~30% for the 18-34 vote. What's the explanation to that? Millenial's aren't really that "liberal". Few of these people are bernouts, but libertarians who don't vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
I would watch a show with James Carville and Mark Cuban just hanging out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Pitbull's clapping laughter reminded me of Lil' Kev from Always Sunny. http://youtu.be/9OZ40fPvhjk
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Has anyone checked out the new VICE nightly newscast? The first episode feature a correspondent hanging with Glenn Beck at his ranch. Apparently Beck sees no connection between his tea-party movement and Trump ....
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Yeah, caught each one so far---last night's with Boehner was also amusing in much the same way. Pretty solid newscast format that'll hopefully allow them greater flexibility in the long form coverage of the proper Friday night show after Real Time once they get back into the full swing of things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Since Friday it's been really interesting. Many of the same people who wanted Bill Clinton impeached, tarred and feathered and his US citizenship revoked are now defending Trump to the bitter end with all kinds of half-baked notions. I can't believe this guy is still going around saying "The Bible is my #1 book..." Soon he will be saying he's the #1 Bible scholar in the world. As more and more sordid DNC Wikileaks e-mails are released the true lengths people will go to defend their candidates is becoming more absurdly hilarious. It seems as the country has become more irreligious that party allegiance (with religious fervor) has taken its place. Also,  at Pitbull in OT saying "politricksians and their politricking with their politricks." I knew that'd anger Bill...although his citing of ancient legislation to respond wasn't very compelling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
with the exception of trump email lists I think most people agree the wikileaks stuff is a whole lot of nothing though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Tweak posted:with the exception of trump email lists I think most people agree the wikileaks stuff is a whole lot of nothing though? It pretty much is nothing other than questionable remarks about trade and secretly liking the Keystone Pipeline. Pretty much everyone, other than those who take her 100% for word on her campaign trail, won't be surprised by her "leaks".
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Tweak posted:with the exception of trump email lists I think most people agree the wikileaks stuff is a whole lot of nothing though? There is a lot to peruse and sift through but the vast majority really isn't scandalous. Some have found things that can easily be construed as obfuscation, and evidence of media collusion/tampering right from the top with links to Donna Brazile/John Podesta. HRC and Bill Ivey wrote and said some things that will rankle many voters too. Orwellian vibes can be found at times. Of course a lot of people don't care at all as things usually are stratified along party lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
edit: at risk of getting into something I'm not qualified for, none of the stuff I read (claiming to be, "sticked to the top of r/the_donald) seemed scandalous, or at worst business as usual. I only wished to say that pointing out that those leaks are pretty much nothing doesn't require some sort of super entrenched dem to defend. If the intent was some sort of equivalency to defending Trump it was just hilariously false.
Tweak fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Tweak posted:edit: at risk of getting into something I'm not qualified for, none of the stuff I read (claiming to be, "sticked to the top of r/the_donald) seemed scandalous, or at worst business as usual. I only wished to say that pointing out that those leaks are pretty much nothing doesn't require some sort of super entrenched dem to defend. If the intent was some sort of equivalency to defending Trump it was just hilariously false. I agree that it's mainly business as usual. It's just a fresh and very large reminder of it. We're talking about tens of thousands of e-mails here so it's something not easily summarized or discussed without pages of discourse. Trump's sayings and actions are nothing new either. To put it simply, DJT and HRC are above the law. Lost in all Trump/Clinton personal attacks and this goofy election is the refusal of the R leadership to approve a new justice. Just grinding things to a halt and acting like Obama didn't win the 2012 election. PS I wish I knew what Bill told Trump on the golf course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Yes, proof that our media is used by the DNC for propaganda is "nothing". Trump is a meanie, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Jesus Christ Ann Coulter is the worst human being ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
I missed seeing Bernie arguing with right wingers and libertarians on this show
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:54
|
|