Football ...
Basketball ...
Baseball ...
Other Sports ...
Futbol ...
🤫995🤫 ...
Gambling ...
Movies & TV ...
Music ...
Hobbies ...
Lulz ...
Food & Travel
...
Daily Texan ...
Business & Markets ...
Cloak Room ...
Help ...
For Sale ...
Board Discussion ...
Advertise...
Tailgate Donations
-
Posts
3276 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by Tuco
-
CQR Research (B-rated by 538) July 5th: Eastman 50 to Bacon 49 Biden 51 to Trump 44. DCCC targeting (B/C) May 10, 12 Eastman 48 to Bacon 47 Biden 52 to Trump 41 Sure, the polling is not extensive, but even skewed polling should be sufficient to understand that Biden is running ahead of Eastman in the district. But, please, continue to impress with your in depth analysis of "well, the Democrat House candidate didn't win in 2018, so...."
-
There have been zero quality polls there and Ds couldn't flip the congressional seat in 2018. Biden being favored there is an unreliable shot in the dark. I wouldn't hold your breath. Biden is running 5-8 points ahead of the progressive Dem candidate (Eastman) in NE-2. Yes, there is scant polling to confirm that, but I think most people would agree that Biden should do better against Trump, than Eastman (female progressive with a background in non-profits) will do against Bacon (former air force general, who campaigns towards the middle, while voting in line with GOP). Bacon knows this as well, which is why he is going everything he can to avoid saying Trump's name. Don Jr. stopped by yesterday to stump for Trump, and Bacon didn't say shit on any of his social media platforms about it. The Eastman/Bacon race was within 2 points at the midterm, which was a surprise, and that was before a pandemic and unemployment spike. It's a coin flip now. Prior to the '18 midterm, CQR had Bacon at +4 and +7. Same pollsters currently have Eastman at +1. Both parties have had this race on their top 10 list for over a year. As far as I can tell, neither Biden nor Trump have any appreciable ground force in the district. Biden is basically running his campaign through the Nebraska Democratic Party, in coordination with the Eastman campaign. I assume Trump's approach is similar. For my relatively Democratic area, I would say that Eastman signs outnumber Bacon signs 2:1, and Biden signs outnumber Trump signs 10:1. I can think of only five Trump signs I've seen on my walks, which is probably about a 3 mile radius. I see that as more of a sign of lack of voter engagement from the Trump campaign, rather than lack of voter interest, but who knows. My neighborhood is not a suburb, but is mainly white, educated, upper middle class, so a similar stereotype. It's not just an "unreliable shot in the dark" that Biden is favored in NE-2. But obviously it's not a lock. Lean blue makes sense. And speaking of outside money pouring into the race, if anyone wants to help my girl Eastman, and Biden by extension, here's a link to throw money at.
-
Update for those who paid attention to this story out of Omaha. The family's attorney was able to push for a grand jury. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the grand jury would not recommend charges. Yesterday, we heard rumors that the GJ would announce yesterday. The cops told the business in downtown to close up early, and they set up barricades, in anticipation of a "riot" over a disappointing announcement. They ended up not announcing until today: manslaughter, terroristic threats, and use of a weapon to commit a felony. Apparently the shooter had shit on his phone that cast doubt on the self defense plea. But of course he did. Because it wasn't unanticipated, and he is the kind of guy to talk about how he is going to kill someone. (My speculation.) So along away from a verdict. But the backlash prompted a response, and that response led to a decision to convene a grand jury. And that grand jury found credible cause to recommend charges.
-
The idea that Congressmen "defend the second amendment" is flawed from the start, and is such a shitty deflection. Congressmen can't buttress the 2A from attacks, nor can they diminish it. The 2A is already law, and the Supreme Court has interpreted its extent. And that interpretation has allowed for reasonable gun control laws, including the limitations of what arms can be kept from the public. In the 1930s, we decided it made no sense that fully automatic weapons should be available for the public. Their sale was so strictly limited, that it is effectively a ban. The second amendment still stands. In the 90s, we decided that assault rifles could have their sale strictly limited. While we can argue about the appropriateness and adequacy of the definition of assault weapons, that limitation was not found to be in violation of the 2A. There is nothing a Congressman can do about that interpretation, or further interpretations on the subject. Since then, Congress has refused to work within the legislative space allowed by the 2A interpretation. It has nothing to do with Constitutional rights, and everything to do with lobbying. They could make society a safer place, without infringing on the 2A, but they have refused to do so. And every year that goes by, technology improves and the weapons get better at what they were designed to do: allow a single person to kill a large number of his fellow citizens. Is there anyone out there who would prefer to use a 1930s era "tommy gun" in a fight over a modern, legal, AR-15 with extended clip? The current legal weapons are more lethal than what America decided to effectively outlaw 90 years ago. Gun control is not a radical idea. Refusing to deal with the issue is.
-
I’ve seen quite a few of Trump ads on YouTube. I’m not the target audience, which makes it a little weird that I see so many of them. I looked at some left wing blogger talking about the Dem candidate I’m supporting, and got a Trump ad. Whatever targeting algorithm they use, it casts a huge fucking net. And the ad is this completely over the top, poorly produced, nonsense with Harris cackling as a city burns in the background. So I don’t think it is a good ad targeting even swing voters. Maybe Biden is under-utilizing the platform, but it doesn’t appear to me that Trump is using it efficiently at all.
-
One of Rudy's buddies in Ukraine is being sanctioned for trying to influence US elections. The fact the US intel accused him of this was reported in August. Mnuchin sounding surprising direct on the press release. From a different article:
-
I don't think Biden can let states fall by the wayside, but it would be running against brand for Biden to start up door to door canvassing, while campaigning on a policy of taking the outbreak seriously. Trump could go out, knock door to door, kiss people on the lips, and grab them by their pussies, and no one would say shit, because it is completely in line with what we know about him. Biden cannot. It would mean one of two things: 1) he is only pretending to be concerned about the virus, or 2) he is willing to risk the lives of his volunteers and voters to win. It's a disadvantage, and phone banking is an inadequate replacement, but I don't see what alternative he has.
-
As loathsome as Trump is, there are legitimate reasons why lower income workers would favor him. While I disagree with protectionist trade policies I can see why it would be appealing to a guy working in a slowly shrinking factory. While I disagree with stricter immigration policies, particularly the cruelty which Trump endorses, I can see why a roofer might find it appealing. But, while that may demonstrate a political advantage of courting these voters with these policies, I don't think it is a viable platform, long term, for the Republican Party. It's one thing push a steel tariff. It's another thing to deal with the consequences - higher construction costs, retaliation by other countries against our ag products, etc.. Long term, I don't see the GOP sticking with a protectionist trade policy. I think they are also going to get pushed by big business on immigration. If the low-income workers dream comes true - if wages really increased because of stricter immigration - it means that corporations are paying more. The Republicans have not been very successful in maintaining a big tent, and it would be really difficult for the GOP to cater to both the low income workers and the wealthy who would be paying them more. And we know who funds the Party. Assuming Trump loses, and I believe he will, and assuming the GOP loses ground in the House, the Senate, and state governments, and I think they will, the Trump model will proven to be a failure. Certainly both parties will work to court the Trump voter. But these are not well thought out policies and they do not benefit a majority of people in the country. It's not just bad policies; it's bad politics.
-
Per Open Secrets, she had 90k on hand versus Williams' 1.25M, as of June 30th (end of quarter). So, she has some ground to make up. Fortunately, it isn't all about the money, but money certainly helps. Next quarter reporting should be interesting to see how much candidates raised, and from who. My impression is that there is just money flowing on both sides. The system fucking sucks.
-
Let's be clear what language Silver uses: 31 of the 100 models show Trump winning. I didn't read his thread, but unless he said all of those models are equally probable, he is not saying Trump has a 31% chance of winning. He likely runs a model that has Trump getting x,y,z percentages of demographics X,Y,Z, and then that equates to state results. While those x,y,z percentages may be reasonable, I assume he is testing the models at the book ends of likelihood - out to some standard deviation - for xyz. If he was only running models at what he expects to happen, at standard deviation equals zero, there would only be one model to run. - Correction: he runs 40,000 simulation which creates 100 maps. Doesn't mean each simulation is equally probable, and sure as shit doesn't mean each unique result is equally probable.
-
At least with the primaries, vote by mail ballots that were received prior to election day were counted prior to election day, or maybe just prior to the close of polls. The results were announced much quicker than other elections. I'm not sure why it would be different for the general. And I doubt most Democrats will hold onto their ballots until election day.
-
I love it when Congressmen reference Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. So....you're an unqualified stooge who was installed by the political machine to rubber stamp corrupt legislation? Sounds about right. (Yes, Smith does redeem himself, and America, by the end.)
-
How do we split between the urban and rural communities? Because that's where the split is. There isn't a hell of a lot of difference between the voting public in a mid-size city in Nebraska compared to a mid-sized city in Illinois. I've lived in both. The difference between Nebraska and Illinois is the percentage of the population that lives in urban communities. California could split from the Union, and you'd still have the divide between the urbanized coast and the rural valley.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!