Trump vs Beto

[Newy25 7638]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

My side isn't going to win, dude. The Libertarians have a habit of nominating not actually libertarian candidates who also happen to suck in general.

 

2020 will be a referendum on Trump if nothing major changes. The best bet for Democrats is to feed the beast that was slightly awakened yesterday. We just saw Presidential turnout for a midterm. Both sides will be rabid. The GOP will paint the Democrat candidate as an anti-Trump socialist devil no matter who it is.

 

You don't win that kind of election by appealing to the middle. That's exactly how you lose. You need to get your base just as rabid as the other side's base and try to give the middle slightly fewer bad reasons to vote against you.

 

 

Trump won by taking away long term traditional Democrat voters in the Midwest. Some people have called that energizing the base that is not exactly what happened. He stole away white, working class voters that voted for Obama. 

In the process of being a major asshole the Democrats can steal long term traditional Republican votes that are turned off by his antics (me, as an example). 

[Newy25 7638]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What about Elizabeth Warren’s message doesn’t resonate?

All of them. She is not likeable at all with independent voters. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

All of them. She is not likeable at all with independent voters. 

Oh so you have no idea what you’re talking about.

noted

[JBJ 3647]

Just now, Newy25 said:

All of them. She is not likeable at all with independent voters. 

You got to understand this about progressives: They are morally driven by their care nature, and they are poor at systems reasoning.  Ideas are emotive primarily and hardly explored.  This is why women are drawn to it.  For example, minimum wage increases are good because poor people making higher wages feels like a good idea.  The actual economic effects are of no interest to them.

That's why Hugo will answer this with an emotive quip and lack of explanation.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You got to understand this about progressives: They are morally driven by their care nature, and they are poor at systems reasoning.  Ideas are emotive primarily and hardly explored.  This is why women are drawn to it.  For example, minimum wage increases are good because poor people making higher wages feels like a good idea.  The actual economic effects are of no interest to them.

That's why Hugo will answer this with an emotive quip and lack of explanation.

LMAO I’m asking “what about Warren’s MESSAGE doesn’t resonate?”

Response was basically everything because she sucks and everyone hates her.

But yes, I’m the one with the emotional response problem.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You got to understand this about progressives: They are morally driven by their care nature, and they are poor at systems reasoning.  Ideas are emotive primarily and hardly explored.  This is why women are drawn to it.  For example, minimum wage increases are good because poor people making higher wages feels like a good idea.  The actual economic effects are of no interest to them.

That's why Hugo will answer this with an emotive quip and lack of explanation.

you have balls hanging from your truck, don't you?

[TexArcher 37455]

28 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You got to understand this about progressives: They are morally driven by their care nature, and they are poor at systems reasoning.  Ideas are emotive primarily and hardly explored.  This is why women are drawn to it.  For example, minimum wage increases are good because poor people making higher wages feels like a good idea.  The actual economic effects are of no interest to them.

That's why Hugo will answer this with an emotive quip and lack of explanation.

No, minimim wage increases are good because people who are willing to work 40 hours a week shouldn't need a roommate to be able to afford a one-bedroom apartment and health insurance at the same time.  Since we're not a nation of selfish fucking cunts and all.

And the economic bonus is that we know they'll spend the extra money right back into the economy.

 

[Foosters 17691]

33 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You got to understand this about progressives: They are morally driven by their care nature, and they are poor at systems reasoning.  Ideas are emotive primarily and hardly explored.  This is why women are drawn to it.  For example, minimum wage increases are good because poor people making higher wages feels like a good idea.  The actual economic effects are of no interest to them.

That's why Hugo will answer this with an emotive quip and lack of explanation.

This is amazing. You were asked to critique Warren's platform, and you respond that women and progressives are emotionally driven and lack the ability to articulate ideas.  Give yourself a trophy for this one.

[JBJ 3647]

18 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you have balls hanging from your truck, don't you?

No.  I couldn't find any big enough.

 

29 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

LMAO I’m asking “what about Warren’s MESSAGE doesn’t resonate?”

Response was basically everything because she sucks and everyone hates her.

But yes, I’m the one with the emotional response problem.

His response was that her favorability among independents is low.  It's 29% by the way.

Edited November 7, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 18603]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What about Elizabeth Warren’s message doesn’t resonate?

It's not the message. It's her. Her numbers suck.

She shouldn't run thinking she'll win, because she won't.

She should run to pull the party left.

[Newy25 7638]

42 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh so you have no idea what you’re talking about.

noted

Note all you want. Please dear God just do not nominate her. Your party rigs it’s primaries so tell me who we have to pay to put the fix in for a moderate candidate. 

[Spankytoes 1735]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

 

Neither Obama nor Bill Clinton won with rural Texans either, so I'm still not sure what your point is.  A Democrat shouldn't depend on Texas to win the presidency.  Saying Beto is a bad candidate because he didn't win Texas is setting an impossible standard that practically no Democrat can meet. 

He came closer than anyone in decades while openly being to the left of the average Democrat.  He's already admired nationally.  I personally don't think he's experienced enough, but that doesn't seem to stop people from becoming president these days.

He is admired...by other Dems. They would vote for him anyway. Conservatives hate him. He doesn’t have enough strength or cult of personality to win over the swing states. When the calendar flips to 2019 no one outside of Texas will remember who he was ala Wendy Davis. At best, he will be the Dem’s version of Bobby Jindahl for the 2010’s. Ted Cruz is just that unlikeable, which is why it was even a race. The Electoral Collage isn’t a popular vote, which is why there isn’t any transitive properties. Trump supporters are quietly passionate about Trump and could not give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about his rhetoric. People severely underestimate his staying power. The only was he leaves the office is in a body bag or at the end of his 8 years.

[Guest Lobo]

I would certainly much prefer Robert O'Rourke over Donald J. Trump for President.  But I think about Noriega back in 2008.  

Spends 4.0mm to get 3.4mm votes.  About $1.20/vote.  With very little fanfare, though admittedly he rides the fervor of Obama.  

Robert O'Rourke spends 70.0mm to get just over 4.0mm votes.  About $17.50/vote with a massive national focus on him with regard to traditional media and social media.  

All that extra money for a mid-term race and he falls behind a shitty Ted Cruz.  Barely covers more ground, in a state that's only gotten more purple since Noriega.  

Think about what Noriega did in a very "red state" period for Texas and how Beto only marginally improved upon with a magnitude more of resources.  It's odd to me.  

I don't know another O'Rourke campaign could even dent Trump's machine.  I'm starting to think Bloomberg all the way. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

12 minutes ago, JBJ said:

No.  I couldn't find any big enough.

 

His response was that her favorability among independents is low.  It's 29% by the way.

 

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's not the message. It's her. Her numbers suck.

She shouldn't run thinking she'll win, because she won't.

She should run to pull the party left.

What about her message doesn’t resonate? 

[bad_teammate 13125]

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

The only way he leaves the office is in a body bag or at the end of his 8 years.

Fixed the spelling, but quoted for truth.

Trump isn't losing in 2020. White men are going to rub his belly for as long as he sings the racist hymns.

[Guest Lobo]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

What about her message doesn’t resonate? 

The amount of money she receives every single year from Brown Rudnick is disturbing.  If you could personify a corporate restructuring law firm as a person, it would be Gordon Gecko and in real life his law firm would be Brown Rudnick.  One of the smarmiest and shadiest firms on our planet.  I don't dislike her, but her association with them is beyond disturbing.  

[David Dennison 18603]

6 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

He is admired...by other Dems. They would vote for him anyway. Conservatives hate him. He doesn’t have enough strength or cult of personality to win over the swing states. When the calendar flips to 2019 no one outside of Texas will remember who he was ala Wendy Davis. At best, he will be the Dem’s version of Bobby Jindahl for the 2010’s. Ted Cruz is just that unlikeable, which is why it was even a race. The Electoral Collage isn’t a popular vote, which is why there isn’t any transitive properties. Trump supporters are quietly passionate about Trump and could not give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about his rhetoric. People severely underestimate his staying power. The only was he leaves the office is in a body bag or at the end of his 8 years.

Or the end of four years. Which became much more likely last night.

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

My side isn't going to win, dude. The Libertarians have a habit of nominating not actually libertarian candidates who also happen to suck in general.

 

2020 will be a referendum on Trump if nothing major changes. The best bet for Democrats is to feed the beast that was slightly awakened yesterday. We just saw Presidential turnout for a midterm. Both sides will be rabid. The GOP will paint the Democrat candidate as an anti-Trump socialist devil no matter who it is.

 

You don't win that kind of election by appealing to the middle. That's exactly how you lose. You need to get your base just as rabid as the other side's base and try to give the middle slightly fewer bad reasons to vote against you.

 

 

As someone in the middle this is annoying as all fuck...but it's a fact that's how you need to run.  For those truly in the middle, Trump is so toxic, you'll give up just about anything to vote straight D as myself and many like me did this past cycle. 

The gloom and doom crowd need to relax.  Rome wasn't built in a day and it also wasn't wiped out in a day.  There's a long fight we're just getting into.  If R's don't reject Trump over the next couple years, they're doomed as a party at least in the short term...but I happen to think Trump is the useful idiot for them right now and when the time is right they'll launch his carcass into the moat.  Maybe that's wishful thinking. 

Either way, for those on the left, they should have a lot of positives to take away from this past election...even the Beto race.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

4 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

but I happen to think Trump is the useful idiot for them right now and when the time is right they'll launch his carcass into the moat.

I think you have this backwards.  The GOP was the useful idiot and Trumpism threw them overboard two years ago. They ain’t coming back or laying low. 

[JBJ 3647]

26 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What about her message doesn’t resonate? 

In general, progressivism doesn't resonate among independents.  Independents have a lower care nature than both progressives and conservatives and are analytical thinkers. And they have the lowest rate of women.  This makes them less apt to embrace progressive ideas even than conservatives are.

Personally, Warren has an implication (using AA to get an unfair privilege) that will further drive independents away and isolate liberals. Pervasiveness of that implication, of course, matters.

[David Dennison 18603]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

You got to understand this about progressives: They are morally driven by their care nature, and they are poor at systems reasoning.  Ideas are emotive primarily and hardly explored.  This is why women are drawn to it.  For example, minimum wage increases are good because poor people making higher wages feels like a good idea.  The actual economic effects are of no interest to them.

That's why Hugo will answer this with an emotive quip and lack of explanation.

Why don't you tell us what the actual economic effects of minimum wage increases are.

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

43 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think you have this backwards.  The GOP was the useful idiot and Trumpism threw them overboard two years ago. They ain’t coming back or laying low. 

Trump is unique.  He has a shelf life.  There's not a bunch of candidates out there with the psychological makeup to carry on his bullshit movement.  To get all excited and assign more credit than is due, is just stupid.  He's a charlatan and absolutely an idiot.  While the idiot happens to be quarterbacking your team - you do what you can do to score as many points as you can.  That's what these assholes are doing.  It's not that easy to get the damn back up in. 

Edited November 8, 2018 by ChiTownDoc

[bad_teammate 13125]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Why don't you tell us what the actual economic effects of minimum wage increases are.

He can't. Conservatives argue every time that they result in job losses. That is a lie, but it's the only lie they have.

And they can't challenge their assumptions, because the Koch brothers haven't told FOX News to challenge that assumption yet.

[David Dennison 18603]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

He can't. Conservatives argue every time that they result in job losses. That is a lie, but it's the only lie they have.

And they can't challenge their assumptions, because the Koch brothers haven't told FOX News to challenge that assumption yet.

I know. I just like hearing them say it. Then I point them to Seattle's unemployment rate.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

18 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Trump is unique.  He has a shelf life.  There's not a bunch of candidates out there with the psychological makeup to carry on his bullshit movement.  To get all excited and assign more credit than is due, is just stupid.  He's a charlatan and absolutely an idiot.  While the idiot happens to be quarterbacking your team - you do what you can do to score as many points as you can.  That's what these assholes are doing.  It's not that easy to get the damn back up in. 

I was where you are a year ago.  I thought there were adults in the room in the GOP that would return to some previous norms once this Trump fever passes. They won’t.

Trump doesn’t have a movement but his politics is seductive. He is pure nihilism completely validated and unimpeded.  No conscience conservative movement is coming to dethrone him.  This only ends one of two ways now, the GOP destroying itself or taking complete control.   

Sadly after last night, it looks like it’s going to be an incredibly painful and slow death for the GOP and/or the republic.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[RayDog 682]

The house districts swung 10% on average. That is a pretty big swing.

Note that the averag swing toward the Republican presidential nominee by state from 2012 to 2016 was 4.5%. So the correction reversed Republican gains from 2016 and went about the same amount toward the Democrats.

I hope for an additional 5% in 2020.

 

[Revolution512 1479]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

I know. I just like hearing them say it. Then I point them to Seattle's unemployment rate.

What exactly do you think you’re pointing out?

[Huckleberry 32685]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

I would certainly much prefer Robert O'Rourke over Donald J. Trump for President.  But I think about Noriega back in 2008.  

Spends 4.0mm to get 3.4mm votes.  About $1.20/vote.  With very little fanfare, though admittedly he rides the fervor of Obama.  

Robert O'Rourke spends 70.0mm to get just over 4.0mm votes.  About $17.50/vote with a massive national focus on him with regard to traditional media and social media.  

All that extra money for a mid-term race and he falls behind a shitty Ted Cruz.  Barely covers more ground, in a state that's only gotten more purple since Noriega.  

Think about what Noriega did in a very "red state" period for Texas and how Beto only marginally improved upon with a magnitude more of resources.  It's odd to me.  

I don't know another O'Rourke campaign could even dent Trump's machine.  I'm starting to think Bloomberg all the way. 

That analysis is lacking, though, because it does not apply the concept of marginal wins (marginal votes in our case). There is a floor to the vote for any candidate in an election. Perhaps the trickiest part of the analysis is identifying that floor, of course, but then we can look at the cost per marginal win while keeping in mind that each marginal win/vote is more expensive than the last. Warning: spoilered data nerd longcat ahead.

tl;dr O'Rourke cost of marginal vote was $108.42, Noriega cost of marginal vote was $82.29 and after considering the analysis assumptions and the increasing cost of each marginal vote this is a negligible difference

An initial estimate for vote floor for any candidate would be the straight ticket votes for their party in the election. There are a couple of problems with trying to use that in our case. The first is that I don't have those statewide numbers for either race, the second is that it fails to take into account the GOTV successes or failures of the specific candidate. The former issue is one that we can't work around while the second issue rears its ugly head even in our workaround.

The workaround is to use the lowest vote total for a member of the candidate's party in a similar scope race (meaning statewide versus statewide) in that election. In 2008 the lowest vote total that a Democrat received in a Texas statewide race was 3,340,754 (JR Molina, Supreme Court Place 4). In 2018 the equivalent number was 3,524,025 (Lupe Valdez, Governor). So in this initial and rudimentary analysis, O'Rourke received 494,814 marginal votes compared to Noriega's 48,611 in 2008.

But what about the GOTV value of expenditures? Obviously they exist or campaigns wouldn't consistently spend them in that manner. Accounting for that is especially important when looking at high profile top of the ballot races because these are the ones where the efforts can drag along lower profile races. This means that in our case O'Rourke is negatively affected in our initial analysis by the fact that his expenditures and efforts actually increased the floor that we are comparing him to. Conversely, Noriega received an assist that likely wasn't his doing because Obama actually dragged Noriega's personal floor higher. This second impact is admittedly much smaller, of course, because Obama likewise increased the overall floor that Molina is being compared to in 2008 so we will not ding him for that. With this assumption openly declared, that O'Rourke was the key GOTV achiever in 2018 and Noriega was not but rather Obama was in 2008, let's analyze how much GOTV credit O'Rourke should receive.

My first quick and dirty effort to weed out this credit will be to look for a similar state to Texas in a similar election historically. For the election, we are looking for a midterm election with complete Republican control of Washington. Because we are comparing Texas to this other state, the fact that 2018 saw a huge national turnout surge is a controlled variable that affects both increases. Another variable will be the population change between elections and we will control for that with a simple multiplication step. The year we will compare to is 2006. I selected two "similar" states in Florida and Arizona. Obviously Texas is a fairly unique creature, and in fact at first I decided to simply use national numbers after not identifying similar enough states but those results didn't work because the increased turnout in 2018 might be concentrated instead of evenly distributed as well as the fact that reliable overall national numbers are not yet available. I also used House elections instead of Senate elections due to a more distributed look at the state instead of specific candidates In 2006 there were 627,259 Democratic votes in House elections in Arizona and 1,559,968 such votes in Florida. In 2018 there have been 1,149,620 and 3,086,391 respectively (note that I am using projected final numbers based on current vote ratios for Arizona which has not yet reported final numbers). That represents an average voter turnout increase of 90.6% across the two states. However, if we account for population increases in the two states (which we will also do for Texas), then the average increase expected with zero population change would be 61.9%.

The population increase in Texas between 2006 and 2018 was 22.9%. That means that we should expect a Democrat increase of 99.0% in Texas between 2006 in order to meet the average across Arizona and Florida. The 2006 floor for Democrats was 1,310,337 (Chris Bell, Governor), however we have to throw that out because of the unique race for Governor that year. Next up is Radnofsky's total of 1,555,202. That means the expected floor for 2018 should be 3,095,325 if Texas Democrat increase between 2006 and 2018 matched Arizona and Florida. The actual number from above was 3,340,754. So the initial GOTV credit for O'Rourke would be 245,429, but we are not done with that number yet.

In 2006 the average spread between Republicans and Democrats in statewide races (pulling out the gubernatorial race because of the previously referenced effect of Friedman, Strayhorn, etc.) was 16.7%. We're going to use this comparison to attempt to account for the changes in Texas demographics and voting tendencies based on factors outside the candidate's influence. In 2016 that figure was 14.1%. Apply another slight change based on that simple trendline and we arrive at an expected difference of 13.6% for this year. In order to be conservative in our analysis let's theorize that the 3.1% change is all in gained Democrat voters. Therefore we adjust our expected floor from 3,095,325 to 3,189,934 which drops our O'Rourke GOTV credit to 150,220 votes. If I were to actually do a full analysis I would also note that Cruz isn't popular, relatively speaking, for a Texas GOP incumbent but I've already spent too much time on this to add that factor. Besides, a lot of that is taken into account by using the 2016 election, and anti-Trump sentiment, in previous comparative steps. Additionally this entire step is double counting changes in the electorate since we're already comparing to Florida and Arizona, so we are once again minimizing the effect of O'Rourke's campaign here to arrive at a conservative result.

Adding the GOTV credit to the base marginal vote number gives us a total of 645,634 marginal votes "purchased" by O'Rourke's campaign. That gives us final figures of $108.42 in cost per marginal vote for O'Rourke and $82.29 for Noriega. There are two things to keep in mind when looking at this result. The first is that, as mentioned above, we were extremely careful at each step to minimize our calculated O'Rourke effects and even double counted electorate changes against him. The other and perhaps more important factor is the fact that each marginal vote is more expensive than the previous. Essentially, the first voter's mind you change or convince to vote instead of sitting out the election is the easiest. Each additional marginal voter becomes harder and harder to convince. The last marginal vote that Noriega purchased was #48,611 while O'Rourke purchased an additional 597,023 marginal voters, each of which was more expensive than the most expensive Noriega marginal vote. With these two factors in mind, the difference between the two values is negligible and there is nothing to suggest that the O'Rourke campaign was less effective at utilizing their funds than Noriega's.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Beto running would have nothing to do with winning Texas. Sure the Dems are not opposed to it but Beto shows that he can raise money and people like his positive message. Beto needs to learn more about campaigning within a larger strategy and he can definitely improve on better short explanations but then again most Dems struggle with the last point. 

That’s a key point.  Beto can improve and go on to larger things.  Cruz hit his ceiling last night.  That could be his last electoral win. 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

5 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

It's pretty simple if you just think about it. The Democrats should run an old socialist Jew in 2020. 

If he could convince voters that he will make sure they can get their insulin easily and cheaply, he would take a massive chunk of Trump’s base. 

[David Dennison 18603]

11 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

What exactly do you think you’re pointing out?

That increasing the minimum wage often has a positive economic impact.

Shocker.

Edited November 8, 2018 by David Dennison

[atomheartbevo 89362]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

What about her message doesn’t resonate? 

She’s from fucking Oklahoma. 

[LongestHorn 759]

“The Democrats don’t have anybody like him. I’ve seen all of them. They don’t have anyone of his caliber on the national stage. I pray for the soul of anyone who has to run against him in Iowa in 453 days.”

— Ted Cruz’s strategist Jeff Roe, quoted by Politico, on Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s (D-TX) chances if he ran for president in 2020.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/07/beto-orourke-2020-elections-iowa-new-hampshire-973419

[atomheartbevo 89362]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Fixed the spelling, but quoted for truth.

Trump isn't losing in 2020. White men are going to rub his belly for as long as he sings the racist hymns.

Prior to last night, assuming the Russia stuff doesn’t sink him, I would give it 50/50.  

But last night, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania flipped, and two of them flipped bigly.  One of those bigger losses was a US Senate candidate that Trump campaigned for in person (I think he did two rallies for him)  

Trump won those states in 2016 by a combined total of less than 90,000 votes  

That’s 46 electoral votes.  

Show us on the map where Trump makes those electoral votes up.

[SubliminalHorn 6648]

10 hours ago, Red Five said:

Biden/Beto

This is my prediction

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, SubliminalHorn said:

This is my prediction

I'm not seeing two white guys being the Democratic nominees.

That won't fly.

 

[SubliminalHorn 6648]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not seeing two white guys being the Democratic nominees.

That won't fly.

 

Fly with whom?

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, SubliminalHorn said:

Fly with whom?

A huge swath of the Democratic Party. I think that matters when the nominee chooses his or her VP.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

In general, progressivism doesn't resonate among independents.  Independents have a lower care nature than both progressives and conservatives and are analytical thinkers. And they have the lowest rate of women.  This makes them less apt to embrace progressive ideas even than conservatives are.

Personally, Warren has an implication (using AA to get an unfair privilege) that will further drive independents away and isolate liberals. Pervasiveness of that implication, of course, matters.

wut?

[Spankytoes 1735]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Or the end of four years. Which became much more likely last night.

How so? What impact did last night have on Trump’s projected time in office?

[Revolution512 1479]

28 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That increasing the minimum wage often has a positive economic impact.

Shocker.

What about the rest of the country that didn’t raise the minimum wage? Was the economy negatively impacted? 

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Spankytoes said:

How so? What impact did last night have on Trump’s projected time in office?

Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. He's going to lose states he won in 2016. He's not going to win any he lost.

2020 is going to be an uphill battle for him.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

It would seem unlikely that dems would have two white guys at the top of the ticket.   Elizabeth warren would make an interesting vp candidate but she’s too polarizing for the top spot.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It would seem unlikely that dems would have two white guys at the top of the ticket.   Elizabeth warren would make an interesting vp candidate but she’s too polarizing for the top spot.

Anyone will be too polarizing when the time comes.  That’s how this works.  

[David Dennison 18603]

1 minute ago, Revolution512 said:

What about the rest of the country that didn’t raise the minimum wage? Was the economy negatively impacted? 

 Probably not. But that's a terrible reason for not raising the minimum wage when doing so has a positive impact on the economy.

[Horn Dog 9644]

2 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Trump is unique.  He has a shelf life.  There's not a bunch of candidates out there with the psychological makeup to carry on his bullshit movement.  To get all excited and assign more credit than is due, is just stupid.  He's a charlatan and absolutely an idiot.  While the idiot happens to be quarterbacking your team - you do what you can do to score as many points as you can.  That's what these assholes are doing.  It's not that easy to get the damn back up in. 

[Spankytoes 1735]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. He's going to lose states he won in 2016. He's not going to win any he lost.

2020 is going to be an uphill battle for him.

I see. Quite an active imagination you have there. Then again, I’m just speaking from the perspective of someone that has spent a considerable amount of time in all 3 of those States in 2018 talking to voters in a professional capacity. I could be way off

[David Dennison 18603]

1 minute ago, Spankytoes said:

I see. Quite an active imagination you have there. Then again, I’m just speaking from the perspective of someone that has spent a considerable amount of time in all 3 of those States in 2018 talking to voters in a professional capacity. I could be way off

Well, they thoroughly rejected the Republican Party with a good economy and full employment. Donald Trump made history last night, and not in a good way.

[bad_teammate 13125]

24 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

What about the rest of the country that didn’t raise the minimum wage? Was the economy negatively impacted? 

Strategic retreat point lol

[Gatorubet 30064]

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Gatorubet