MeerkatBong

Also, I can't compliment you enough for your insights/contributions the past few weeks. Kudos and you nailed it too, more or less.

I feel like that's just an innocent nickname when it comes rom a guy named Horn Dogg.

There was actually a fraction of yard signs this time, which I guess tells some of the story as well?

Just quote our social scientist and thumb-on-the-societal-pulse scholar and what he says about white women:

Dude wow. The Onion is savage.

I think the New Yorker said it best: The red wave never materialized, Trump’s handpicked candidates underperformed, some new faces emerged—but the country appears as evenly divided as ever.

Seriously great job. You know your stuff politically!

Also, apparently this favors the extreme R's (Freedom Caucus or wahtever they are called) as they can extort concessions from the rest of the R's with such a slim majority. It's the inverse of Manchin in Senate.

What do you think and how do you explain that? As mentioned in the other thread, Abrams was a rising star just like Beto. What changed that she couldn't get the band back together of her former coalition and status quo who supported her in the past? I don't recall any self-inflicted wounds or controversy she stepped in from then and now.

Isn't that just half this board anytime Sarah Huckabee Sanders' name gets brought up in any discussion or context?

Right after I read this post I read this on cnn.com: Biggest Losers from Last night: * Beto O’Rourke: O’Rourke came up short in his challenge to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday night, meaning that he has now lost three straight elections: 1) The 2018 Senate race to Ted Cruz; 2) the 2020 Democratic presidential primary; 3) the 2022 governor’s race. In politics, like in baseball, it’s usually three strikes and you’re out. It’s hard to see O’Rourke credibly running for another office any time soon – a remarkable downturn for someone who was regarded as a rising Democratic star just a few years ago. * Stacey Abrams: Speaking of stars who have faded, the Georgia Democrat lost the governor’s race in convincing fashion as she was unable to replicate the coalition that got her close to victory four years ago. Abrams, who emerged from that first race as all the rage among Democrats nationally, looks far less impressive this time around. And with two losses in her two most recent races, it’s hard to see where a political comeback starts for her.

Someone like you would say not wanting to is a good thing. It means the reluctant hero is the hero that is needed. He's not doing it for self-interest, naked ambition, ego or vanity, etc. If Jose Velasquez can do it, you can do it. BrisketTexan for ___ in 2024. I'll give your first $5.

I guess his next step will also tell us if he's in it for the right reasons e.g. ideologically, team-player, helping a vision come to fruition, versus ego/self-interest a la "I was born for this", though to be fair, I wouldn't blame the guy for not wanting anything more to do with politics after his gauntlet he has ran since 2018 and knowing he has tons of money.

Are you running in 2028? 2030? That should be enough time to get your city council and school board bona fides under your belt for a chunkier role. Semi-serious question.

El Paso is very cool. If you are used to creature comforts of a large metro (Dallas/Houston/Austin in Texas) then you will have to adjust your lifestyle a bit, but El Paso offers 75% of what those cities have. What it makes up for is in cost of living and culture-- a good analogy is that El Paso is to a major Texas city like what a college town is to a city. El Paso is more closely related to Las Cruces, NM than anything else as well.

Thank you. When do we think NV will be known? Today? Days? Weeks? At least last night CNN was running with the "we might not have results for weeks"

You almost wonder if it was fatigue as well. What you described is exhausting, and this is his 3rd high profile (Senate, POTUS, Gov) race. Taking 3 high profile massive L's has to be emotionally and mentally exhausting as well. It's like what the Detroit Lions would say-- losing eats at your soul and wears you down and it's hard to shake that culture. Betomania was a force, then Ellen happened and it seemed to never get back on track. Now Beto is associated with political loss, fair or unfair (the Aegean stables that is trying to win Texas as a hard-line anti-gun D).

So, looks like Senate will be 50/50 again (GA/AZ dem, WI/NV rep), no change, and Republicans pick up slightly and take a slight majority in the House. Does that look like what everyone else is seeing? That's probably the best possible outcome for the markets and economy from what I was reading today about historical data on mixed congress and stock market and economy. Also, should be a good moral victory in that it bucked the historical trend of the incumbent party hemorrhaging seats to the minority challenging party in midterms. A referendum against the minority challenging party, even.

I had to google "Interdict".

Makes sense. I'm curious to watch his next moves-- he's generally well-liked by Dems and young people and seems to be passionate about his views and you'd think that is a value add somewhere moving forward.

So what's his viable political career options moving forward? Be an insider? a strategist? fundraiser? cult of personality fluffer for other candidates to rally support?

And not in the spirit of this thread when it started, but I think there is a lot to be happy about from yesterday. Voters were heard, democracy works, there were hardly any shenanigans from what I understand, and people are going to get what they want. Yesterday was a good reminder that despite all the polling and etc., this is why you play the game. Any given Sunday, baby.

This is fascinating because if it continues this way, over a longer period of time, you might see a self-sorting and self-selecting that will result in the more-or-less peaceful segregation of values/politics versus a bloody or violent one. What you describe is the best of bad options, in that way.

So what now? He's lost 3 times in a row. I thought I read from some politico's that losing 3 times in a row is generally understood in the sector that it means 3 strikes and you are out with a political career. Is that accurate? I wonder what he can do to rebound or be of value-- maybe a House Seat? Would his pride let him do that?

I'll move to Denton; tell me more.