Author Topic: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread  (Read 5609 times)

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #120 on: March 13, 2019, 02:30:02 pm »
Mr Suspend Campaign?!?
totally forgot about that one

this timeline is interesting...mostly for it's commentary
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/10/the-john-mccain-campaignsuspension-timeline

9/23
McCain admits he hasn’t yet read the three-page bailout proposal …
… because he was too busy, proof that he would need to suspend his campaign to properly address the crisis.
… because he doesn’t know how to open a PDF document.

9/25
On the first day of campaign suspension, McCain’s Web site is still live, and still accepting donations.
… because John McCain doesn’t have time to fix his Web site when he’s busy fixing the economy.
… because he will need the funds when the campaign resumes.




I do agree with Space...McCain was a formidable candidate, not that I would have ever voted for him
LAMF

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 17403
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #121 on: March 13, 2019, 03:52:40 pm »
I thought we were talking about who ran a good campaign? My point was people always say the loser ran a poor campaign (was a bad candidate) and the winner a good one when in reality it is often not so

Trump’s campaign was a daily shitshow...he went through 3-4 campaign managers...HRC substantially outraised Trump, HRC ran a tight DNC convention compared to the RNC, Trump lost every debate to HRC who did commit a few unforced errors but her campaign was fairly tight

But people voted for Trump...instead of blaming her blame the people but it’s easier for people to say that she must have ran a bad campaign cause she lost

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 17403
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #122 on: March 13, 2019, 04:12:59 pm »
And I thought by terrible candidate you meant someone who ran a bad campaign because campaigning is what a candidate does....but maybe you mean something else?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 04:19:05 pm by hutch »

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 18488
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #123 on: March 13, 2019, 04:49:29 pm »
but I do think when I read your statement, I thought it was the same as Hutch's
As no one really talks about the shift, they just talk about how many votes some one got more than the other person

I can only write in English, however, that doesn't prevent readers from seeing what they want to see.
27>34

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #124 on: March 13, 2019, 04:55:07 pm »
but I do think when I read your statement, I thought it was the same as Hutch's
As no one really talks about the shift, they just talk about how many votes some one got more than the other person

I can only write in English, however, that doesn't prevent readers from seeing what they want to see.
long story short...you are not going to admit this is not the way MOST people discuss election results?
and English is my second language...gibberish is my first
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 04:59:56 pm by Sïdehätch ılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl »
LAMF

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #125 on: March 13, 2019, 05:03:04 pm »
And I thought by terrible candidate you meant someone who ran a bad campaign because campaigning is what a candidate does....but maybe you mean something else?
Honestly, I meant that Kerry was a dead fish and has zero charisma
platform was good, but was hard to like the guy
It's interesting to revisit now, as I wasn't as politically involved in 2004
So I have no remembrance of how the campaign was run, I do think Rove was very effective at controlling the nartive with the voting public
But I didn't realize how close Kerry was to winning
LAMF

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 18488
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #126 on: March 13, 2019, 05:04:13 pm »
The last thing Smackie is going to be is MOST people.

And no, I won't dumb down my speech.  Not even for this board.

It's OK that you misread it - mistakes happen.  And I stand by my point, made here for all to see.  The National Popular Vote may not be the silver bullet for Democrats it's currently being touted as.

That's all.
27>34

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 17403
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #127 on: March 13, 2019, 05:10:46 pm »
I object to the electoral college not because it costs democrats elections but because it’s an outdated undemocratic relic....how is it possible a candidate becomes president with 3 million less votes...that is lame...doesn’t matter who is getting screwed

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #128 on: March 13, 2019, 05:21:52 pm »
I object to the electoral college not because it costs democrats elections
The National Popular Vote may not be the silver bullet for Democrats it's currently being touted as.
I know it benefits the Dems...which I'm a proud member of
But I think if you do the math, there are more Dems and we should be winning more elections
and as it has been posted here before by others, they have to do MORE than win a majority to win elections...that is bullshit
You win 50.01% of the vote...you should win
These small states are mostly Red and they know that the way the EC is set up protects their asses
Rather than playing fair, they are OK with a flawed system because it benefits them
I think my stance is much different.

The thing I like about NPV is it's a simple concept and hard to logically argue (trust me they have their talking points ready)
I think we could get a lot support from independents on this as it has nothing to do with a liberal stance on anything
 
I agree that we should be cautious, but that all of our elections are focused on a few states is a big problem
and the whole winner take all in states really makes democratic voters not even interested in voting as they know it's 5 to 1...but if they knew they vote would be a part of the national election, I do think it would have a positive impact

My concern is after all this effort to get this through...it will just get tied up in the courts and never be able to be implemented
I think the appropriate way to do this is with an amendment, but with out winning elections at the national level, that's not going to happen
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 05:25:25 pm by Sïdehätch ılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl »
LAMF

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #129 on: March 28, 2019, 10:36:25 pm »
Why do I get the feeling this sounds good now, but the first time it is used it's going to fuck me over?
Will you need lubricant?
The fighting blue hen's governor Carny signs.

184 is closer to 270...but still a long long way away.

In the coverage they keep saying how it would have changed the last election
while that's true
I think it should focus more on the 'one person one vote' in your state

 The kerry example in Ohio is often cited too
 I just think the likelihood of it screwing the Dems is really low and the potential for good is high.
I think it's a good issue to run with because it's not really that controversial in general most like the idea....
it's simple

Unlike...the environment religion taxes unions government workers reproductive freedom undocumented and guns (of course)....all those topics suck there's no way not to alienate a large part of country when you pick a stance on one side


I think Trump could potentially be a unifying moment for the Democratic party...or fall flat on their collective faces as they so often do

I know it is shallow to say...but we really need charisma, boatloads of it.  They are all fairly simliar ( ok pop quiz who is for 1. Sex workers 2. Banning circumcision 3. Jamming with Bob wier)
LAMF

Julian, Adroit TASTEMAKER

  • Member
  • Posts: 22731
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #130 on: March 28, 2019, 10:55:10 pm »
I think Trump could potentially be a unifying moment for the Democratic party...or fall flat on their collective faces as they so often do

I know it is shallow to say...but we really need charisma, boatloads of it.  They are all fairly simliar ( ok pop quiz who is for 1. Sex workers 2. Banning circumcision 3. Jamming with Bob wier)
You forgot to log into the Walkie account.
LVMH

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #131 on: April 04, 2019, 09:50:12 am »
Why do I get the feeling this sounds good now, but the first time it is used it's going to fuck me over?
Will you need lubricant?
The fighting blue hen's governor Carny signs.

184 is closer to 270...but still a long long way away.

ok pop quiz who is for 1. Sex workers 2. Banning circumcision 3. Jamming with Bob wier

On April 3, 2019, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the National Popular Vote bill  making New Mexico the 15th jurisdiction to have enacted the bill into law.
It has been enacted into law in 15 states with 189 electoral votes: DC, DE, HI, RI, VT, CO, CT, MD, MA, NM, WA, CA, IL, NJ and NY. 

81 more to go

things are looking up in Ohio (18 votes) to put it on the ballot this year https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190401/ohioans-might-vote-on-issue-to-give-presidency-to-national-popular-vote-winner

Oregon had some news yesterday too
On April 3, 2019, the Senate Rules Committee approved the National Popular Vote bill (status of SB 870).  The bill now goes to the Senate floor


then we'd only need 63 more out of these 10 states!
another 72 electoral votes have passed the measure in one legislative chamber in these states: Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Oregon.
at the state level there is bi-partisan support
40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House
28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate
approved unanimously by committee votes in Republican-controlled states GA and MO

« Last Edit: April 04, 2019, 10:03:39 am by Sïdehätch ılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl »
LAMF