Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I sure hope that 406 isn't saying because he isn't flamboyant or stereotypical to gay culture or whatever (which he probalby is to some degree in his private life) that he doesn't "present as gay". He is open with his husband and doesn't hide it in one bit, for better or worse depending on your perception.

  • Like 1
Posted

Sanders: $34.5 million
Buttigieg: $24.7 million
Biden: $22.7 million
Yang: $16.5 million
Gabbard: $3.4 million

Where do you guys put Warren? Between Yang and Biden seems the most likely to me. Would love to see her outperform Pete.

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I got what he was saying 

His friends see Pete, an out gay man, as a cisgendered man. That isn't problematic? If his friends are extrapolated to the majority (I hope he just has horrible friends), then at best a large amount of people are ignoring a fundamental aspect of who Pete is and assuming his sexuality, at worst, they are calling him a liar and someone faking his queerness, by taking his sexual identity agency away from him and considering him straight.

Edited by Rougarou
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sanders: $34.5 million
Buttigieg: $24.7 million
Biden: $22.7 million
Yang: $16.5 million
Gabbard: $3.4 million

Where do you guys put Warren? Between Yang and Biden seems the most likely to me. Would love to see her outperform Pete.

Agreed between Yang and Biden seem likely. If she's above Pete, watch out!

Posted
1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

His friends see Pete, an out gay man, as a cisgendered man. That isn't problematic? If his friends are extrapolated to the majority (I hope he just has horrible friends), then at best a large amount of people are ignoring a fundamental aspect of who Pete is and assuming his sexuality, at worst, they are calling him a liar and someone faking his queerness, by taking his sexual identity agency away from him and considering him straight.

But he is cisgendered? I think the perception may be that he went directly from the closet to the national spotlight, where he is now a darling to the dem circles of the wealthy/powerful. Although he almost certainly dealt with a lot internally, he likely wasn't subject to the same level of outward discrimination or consequences that perhaps your average LGBT person would endure throughout their lifetime.  Coupled with all of his discussions on religion, it's not super surprising that the LGBT community wouldn't necessarily rally around him as their champion, although I think some certainly do.

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, bonnieblue said:

But he is cisgendered? I think the perception may be that he went directly from the closet to the national spotlight, where he is now a darling to the dem circles of the wealthy/powerful. Although he almost certainly dealt with a lot internally, he likely wasn't subject to the same level of outward discrimination or consequences that perhaps your average LGBT person would endure throughout their lifetime.  Coupled with all of his discussions on religion, it's not super surprising that the LGBT community wouldn't necessarily rally around him as their champion, although I think some certainly do.

I think what I can agree on and pull from this response is that he was overwhelmingly privilaged, which made for an easier time with being queer maybe? And it also isn't his defining feature as a super sharp and able guy with an amazing background, etc...

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

I think what I can agree on and pull from this response is that he was overwhelmingly privilaged, which made for an easier time with being queer maybe? And it also isn't his defining feature as a super sharp and able guy with an amazing background, etc...

Agreed. I don't blame him in the slightest for his timeline as that shit is hard, but I also understand that the experience wouldn't necessarily resonate with others in the community.

Posted (edited)

I can see it because having power and prestige can make anything easy I guess. The de facto COO of one of the MBB firms (not the one Pete worked for, to give indications) is out and nobody cares or thinks about it because he’s a powerful white guy with a ton of money and influence and ability and that becomes your defining feature. But all things being equal, you’d think it would hold more water than it has been in the tradition of making hay politically.

I guess Power trumps all, again no pun intended.

Edited by Rougarou
Posted
37 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

I sure hope that 406 isn't saying because he isn't flamboyant or stereotypical to gay culture or whatever (which he probalby is to some degree in his private life) that he doesn't "present as gay". He is open with his husband and doesn't hide it in one bit, for better or worse depending on your perception.

I said he doesn't present as queer, i.e non-normative. And that's not something to be upset with him about, but it doesn't mean the LGBT community is going to automatically embrace him due to his sexuality.

And I agree that a lot of the resentment likely has to do with privilege, in combination with his policy.  

 

Posted

the weho gays out here love them some pete.  even the black ones!

it says something about society that people aren't automatically running towards the identity politics when choosing a candidate, whether it's gay/straight, man/woman, whatever.  shows me we're actually evolving (slowly).

do all old jews run towards bernie?  do all women go to liz?  do all orange, semi-literate, knuckle-dragging buffoons...

  • Like 3
Posted
38 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the weho gays out here love them some pete.  even the black ones!

it says something about society that people aren't automatically running towards the identity politics when choosing a candidate, whether it's gay/straight, man/woman, whatever.  shows me we're actually evolving (slowly).

do all old jews run towards bernie?  do all women go to liz?  do all orange, semi-literate, knuckle-dragging buffoons...

Liz gets the yellow vote

Posted
13 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Legit forgot she existed 

 

there really should be an snl sketch of staffers getting fired from some of these campaigns, then going home to their families all heartbroken, and breaking the news to their spouses, who sit there and are like, "well, i mean, yeah."

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Pretty sure that 100% of Marianne Williamson's staffers' spouses are cats.

Perfect opportunity for something SNL doesn't do enough of...CROSSOVER SKETCH!  It would be the secondary Democratic candidates meets "Whiskers 'R We" where myriad rescue cats console the candidates as they drop out one by one.  

Posted
10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I guess the idea behind using betting markets as a predictor is that people are rational actors with money?

 

lol imagine that

 

Yeah - not much reliability after 2016. 

"One U.S. prediction market PredictIt, Clinton was trading at 81 cents before the debate, jumped as high as 87 cents during the sparring match, and settled at 83 cents after, said PredictIt spokeswoman Brandi Travis in an interview. That suggests an 83 percent likelihood she’ll win on Election Day.

Another U.S. market, PredictWise, on Thursday morning put the odds of a Clinton victory at 91 percent.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power is so confident in a Hillary Clinton victory, its spokesman (official title: PR & Mischief Champion) noted a come-from-behind Trump victory would “trigger the biggest political payout in bookmaking history and leave Paddy Power with some very expensive pie on its face.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-online-betting-parlors-clinton-expands-her-lead-over-trump-bigly/

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Yeah - not much reliability after 2016. 

"One U.S. prediction market PredictIt, Clinton was trading at 81 cents before the debate, jumped as high as 87 cents during the sparring match, and settled at 83 cents after, said PredictIt spokeswoman Brandi Travis in an interview. That suggests an 83 percent likelihood she’ll win on Election Day.

Another U.S. market, PredictWise, on Thursday morning put the odds of a Clinton victory at 91 percent.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power is so confident in a Hillary Clinton victory, its spokesman (official title: PR & Mischief Champion) noted a come-from-behind Trump victory would “trigger the biggest political payout in bookmaking history and leave Paddy Power with some very expensive pie on its face.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-online-betting-parlors-clinton-expands-her-lead-over-trump-bigly/

 

Rigged matches tend to do that. Just ask butch and Marcellus Wallace. 

Posted
6 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Two things:

Is there comparison stat with the opposite party field vs a president seeking reelection?

Is the Trump figure adjusted for how much will be illegally siphoned off for the family and paying off porn stars?

 

Posted

Sometimes I think people don’t understand what betting odds are. They represent where the money balances, not some kind of crystal ball.
An 80% chance of a thing does not mean 100%. It means that there are 1/4 odds, on on the money line that you’d have to bet $400 to win $100.

Posted
42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I guess the idea behind using betting markets as a predictor is that people are rational actors with money?

 

lol imagine that

 

They sure as fuck think they’re rational.  

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Sometimes I think people don’t understand what betting odds are. They represent where the money balances, not some kind of crystal ball.
An 80% chance of a thing does not mean 100%. It means that there are 1/4 odds, on on the money line that you’d have to bet $400 to win $100.

And now I don’t need to explain it...

Posted

Is a Bern/Warren ticket possible?  I’d think that’s a ticket destined to take out demented grandpa (both of them)...

Also, BT will need to see some poor ER doc for his sustained erection.

Posted
50 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Fundraising woes for Warren this quarter. Everything is temporary if you give it enough time. 

Her campaign has been blowing up my email and texts, pretty annoying actually

Posted
4 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Is a Bern/Warren ticket possible?  I’d think that’s a ticket destined to take out demented grandpa (both of them)...

Also, BT will need to see some poor ER doc for his sustained erection.

I don’t see Warren as his veep pick if he wins the nomination. I see him choosing Klobuchar

Posted
3 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I don’t see Warren as his veep pick if he wins the nomination. I see him choosing Klobuchar

This isn't serious right?

Posted
Is a Bern/Warren ticket possible?  I’d think that’s a ticket destined to take out demented grandpa (both of them)...
Also, BT will need to see some poor ER doc for his sustained erection.
Man, as much as I like both of them, two white coastal progressive academics is probably not a good idea.
Is there a charismatic PoC from a state that doesn't touch the ocean?
Posted (edited)

Bernie should select a black woman from the Midwest. A woman with powerful speaking skills who can inspire crowds.

The Bros are united: We want Nina.

 

 

Edited by bad_teammate
Posted
22 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Is a Bern/Warren ticket possible?  I’d think that’s a ticket destined to take out demented grandpa (both of them)...

Also, BT will need to see some poor ER doc for his sustained erection.

2 white geriatrics in a geographically unbalanced ticket. Yeah that’ll work wonders. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

2 white geriatrics in a geographically unbalanced ticket. Yeah that’ll work wonders. 

Slaying Trump would be something else...just mean if she folds during the D primary process...

Posted

the two white geriatrics thing is a legit concern as pointed out above.  But the geography is not a concern, nor is selecting someone from the "loser" pool of those dropped out of the primary.  It has been proven time and time again in the last 60 years that vice presidential running mates are rarely chosen for geographical advantage nor are they typically chosen from the folks who were in the primary running prior to the convention.  There are a handful out of several dozen examples, it's complete bullshit.  But yeah, in the TV age...Warren and Sanders doesn't make a compelling TV ticket.  Then again, neither does an obese Oompa-Loompa and his albino, gay sidekick.....so what the fuck do we know?  

Posted
44 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

This isn't serious right?

Quite. He has to pick either a woman or a person of color. Warren is too much like him policy wise. Klobuchar is more moderate and can help bring in more of the (former) Blue Wall. I can see it. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

the two white geriatrics thing is a legit concern as pointed out above.  But the geography is not a concern, nor is selecting someone from the "loser" pool of those dropped out of the primary.  It has been proven time and time again in the last 60 years that vice presidential running mates are rarely chosen for geographical advantage nor are they typically chosen from the folks who were in the primary running prior to the convention.  There are a handful out of several dozen examples, it's complete bullshit.  But yeah, in the TV age...Warren and Sanders doesn't make a compelling TV ticket.  Then again, neither does an obese Oompa-Loompa and his albino, gay sidekick.....so what the fuck do we know?  

Two frumpy out of shape white men, one of whom is a stupid racist xenophobe and the other who is a closeted homosexual is exactly representative of the Republican base. They're perfect.

Edited by BradInATX
Posted
9 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Quite. He has to pick either a woman or a person of color. Warren is too much like him policy wise. Klobuchar is more moderate and can help bring in more of the (former) Blue Wall. I can see it. 

Bernie would lose a lot of support, mine included, if he picked Klobuchar whose entire basis is "we can't pay for big things we just need tax breaks for the middle class!" It would make absolutely no sense.

Posted
45 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Bernie would lose a lot of support, mine included, if he picked Klobuchar whose entire basis is "we can't pay for big things we just need tax breaks for the middle class!" It would make absolutely no sense.

You would abstain in this scenario? Or vote Trump?



×
×
  • Create New...