Buttigieg 2020

[Chuckie Finster 22735]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's because he was a Democrat.

Draft-dodging Trump who openly insulted veterans did extremely well among military voters. Now, with 4 years of photo ops with the troops, does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?

 

 

[Jograves 357]

I don't know if it'll be Pete necessarily, but I think most military members want strong leadership at the top. He's proven to be the antithesis of that. Hammer at that and his draft dodging and some of those military votes can be swiped. 

[BradInATX 9208]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's because he was a Democrat.

Draft-dodging Trump who openly insulted veterans did extremely well among military voters. Now, with 4 years of photo ops with the troops, does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?

 

 

So your incorrect assertion that Pete can't pull a single military voter away from Trump means that he shouldn't even try?

WTF?

I don't even know what/why you're arguing this. Do you?

[henrygandorf 29194]

i'll say this - if anyone can pull those votes away, it's pete.  

what part of "play to your strengths" in an election is so complicated?

[bad_teammate 13224]

13 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

So your incorrect assertion that Pete can't pull a single military voter away from Trump means that he shouldn't even try?

me: "... does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?"

You're dishonest.

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'll say this - if anyone can pull those votes away, it's pete.  

what part of "play to your strengths" in an election is so complicated? 

Is pulling military voters a strength Pete has?

[henrygandorf 29194]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's because he was a Democrat.

Draft-dodging Trump who openly insulted veterans did extremely well among military voters. Now, with 4 years of photo ops with the troops, does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?

r's are also pushing "the americans elected trump in 2016 when he didn't produce his tax returns, so he obviously doesn't need to do it and everyone is cool with that" bullshit as well.

meanwhile, most of america wants to fucking see them, if only because he's fighting it so hard.

just because 2016 military voters preferred trump to hillary doesn't mean 2020 voters will prefer trump to pete...or anybody.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Is pulling military voters a strength Pete has?

we won't know unless he wins the nomination, but he should surely try.  are you really claiming there's a downside?  it's not like he has to choose 3 targets and only focus on those.

Edited May 23, 2019 by henrygandorf
fixed quote.

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

me: "... does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?"

You're dishonest.

Is pulling military voters a strength Pete has?

LOL.

I'm dishonest. We ALL know where this stupid nothing-headed nitpick here is coming from, in terms of your motivation. You should just stop pretending, because nobody is buying your "I love all democrats" schtick while you passive-aggressively nitpick all but one candidate for absolutely nothing. There is literally not a single person on this board that believes you. You are actually criticizing a candidate who was a member of our military for attacking Donald Trump being a draft dodger. That's happening.

Last election was won by what, 60,000 votes? ANY vote is an "appreciable number".  But you already know that.

Edited May 23, 2019 by BradInATX

[Jograves 357]

Yeah, what's the downside?

Hammer all that shit...   the draft dodging, the Gold Star family treatment, the refusal to visit the troops overseas (until he finally did) and here at home, that stupid fucking thing he said about earning a Purple Heart, sending troops to the border during the holidays as a political stunt. Beat that shit into the ground. It resonates with military and military mothers. Has he visited a CONUS military base that isn't in the DC area?

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

me: "... does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?"

You're dishonest.

Is pulling military voters a strength Pete has?

Yes.  They wouldn't vote for Hillary, but an appreciable number will vote for Pete. 

 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

Yeah, what's the downside?

Hammer all that shit...   the draft dodging, the Gold Star family treatment, the refusal to visit the troops overseas (until he finally did) and here at home, that stupid fucking thing he said about earning a Purple Heart, sending troops to the border during the holidays as a political stunt. Beat that shit into the ground. It resonates with military and military mothers. Has he visited a CONUS military base that isn't in the DC area?

There's not a downside. He knows it. He's just caught in a stupid agenda driven position and per usual doesn't know when to stop throwing good money after bad.

 

[F250 28818]

2 hours ago, B00M said:

Buttigieg is impressively well spoken, even when improvising, and he doesn't have Beto's annoying mannerisms. He's hard not to like, even if you disagree with some of his politics. 

Agreed, Pete is Central Market with Beto being somewhere between Hill Country Fare and a plain HEB brand.

Everytime Pete speaks, it's good and refreshing and I want more.

Everytime Beto speaks, uh, this kinda sorta tastes like Doritos but something is missing.

[TexEx15 17568]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's because he was a Democrat.

Draft-dodging Trump who openly insulted veterans did extremely well among military voters. Now, with 4 years of photo ops with the troops, does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?

 

 

As a veteran I say yes he will.  Trump is not fit to serve as POTUS or CIC.  Pete has been boots on the ground in country and that means a lot to those whom have served and been deployed (at least amongst my colleagues and friends).  And this is not even to say anything about the cavernous intelligence gap that also weighs heavily in Pete’s favor.

[bad_teammate 13224]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

just because 2016 military voters preferred trump to hillary doesn't mean 2020 voters will prefer trump to pete...or anybody.

2020 Military voters are going to prefer Trump to literally every other D candidate

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

are you really claiming there's a downside?  it's not like he has to choose 3 targets and only focus on those.

Perhaps not right now, but narratives get set and they can doom a campaign. Hillary's campaign became the campaign of moral scolding instead of substantive progress and it hurt her.

Every minute you spend neglecting a demographic is a vote you lose. If you chase the wrong herds, you miss the right ones.

Pete has not demonstrated an ability to capture any kind of voter interest beyond a very narrow (and dramatically over-represented here) group of people.

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You should just stop pretending, because nobody is buying your "I love all democrats" schtick while you passive-aggressively nitpick all but one candidate for absolutely nothing.

That's not my schtick. Go read the Pelosi thread. Read this thread. Go back to Shaggy and read my takes on Hillary.

I don't love all Democrats. Turn on your monitor.

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yes.  They wouldn't vote for Hillary, but an appreciable number will vote for Pete.

What is the confidence of this statement grounded in?

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, TexEx15 said:

As a veteran I say yes he will.  Trump is not fit to serve as POTUS or CIC.  Pete has been boots on the ground in country and that means a lot to those whom have served and been deployed (at least amongst my colleagues and friends).  And this is not even to say anything about the cavernous intelligence gap that also weighs heavily in Pete’s favor.

How did that go for Dukakis (a veteran) or Kerry (a veteran)?

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

Agreed, Pete is Central Market with Beto being somewhere between Hill Country Fare and a plain HEB brand.

Everytime Pete speaks, it's good and refreshing and I want more.

Everytime Beto speaks, uh, this kinda sorta tastes like Doritos but something is missing.

Yeah. I'm souring on Beto myself. He comes across as a not-very-serious person who enjoys the adulation of his crowds and middle-aged women more than learning and being prepared. This isn't a time for un-serious people.

Edited May 23, 2019 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

2020 Military voters are going to prefer Trump to literally every other D candidate

 

So the entire military votes as a bloc? That's an interesting new twist to your mental gymnastics. Your arsenal grows.

Edited May 23, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What is the confidence of this statement grounded in?

Pete served in the military. Are you ok? 

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

2020 Military voters are going to prefer Trump to literally every other D candidate

possibly, but are you honestly saying the delta will mirror 2016?

you don't even believe that.  if it's pete, it'll be way closer.

you've painted yourself into a "can't win don't try" argument, and it's a bummer.

[Jograves 357]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

How did that go for Dukakis (a veteran) or Kerry (a veteran)?

Both were up against better candidates to start...

This is an easy attack on him b_t. He's done literally nothing to show his support for the troops. He'll claim the biggest pay raise in the history of pay raises but we know that's not true. Get him to state again, "no one supports the troops more than me. and i mean, no one. believe me." Pete can say, "oh yeah? I picked up a rifle and stood ready at my post (or whatever the fuck it is the Navy does). Do you support troops that much, Mr. President?"

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

possibly, but are you honestly saying the delta will mirror 2016?

you don't even believe that.  if it's pete, it'll be way closer.

you've painted yourself into a "can't win don't try" argument, and it's a bummer.

It's all binary.

"2020 White Voters are going to prefer Trump to literally every other D candidate"

"2020 Male Voters are going to prefer Trump to literally every other D candidate"

That leaves us like the 15% of the country that is non-white women. We're doomed.

[bad_teammate 13224]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Pete served in the military. Are you ok?

Yes, he did. Finish your thought.

Do you have any evidence that military (veteran or current) care about candidate military service? On the Democrat side?

How did that work out for Kerry? How did that work out for Dukakis?

Does Pete have any track record with military voters?

Does he have connections to large or powerful veteran or enlisted groups?

Is he a regular at veteran or enlisted causes?

Is there a popular movement within the military (enlisted or veteran) for Pete?

Sure, he COULD instigate a bit swing... is there any reason to believe that's in the offing?

[henrygandorf 29194]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How did that go for Dukakis (a veteran) or Kerry (a veteran)?

he ran against hw bush.

are you claiming this is the same thing?

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, he did. Finish your thought.

Do you have any evidence that military (veteran or current) care about candidate military service? On the Democrat side?

How did that work out for Kerry? How did that work out for Dukakis?

Does Pete have any track record with military voters?

Does he have connections to large or powerful veteran or enlisted groups?

Is he a regular at veteran or enlisted causes?

Is there a popular movement within the military (enlisted or veteran) for Pete?

Sure, he COULD instigate a bit swing... is there any reason to believe that's in the offing?

ok wow.

first of all, stop with the kerry/dukakis stuff.  this ain't that, and you know it.

second of all, there is literally zero downside to mentioning it when you can.  he's not campaigning on it, but it's an easy way to poke trump, and voters understand it.  you mentioned earlier that it's about establishing a narrative, and if you do this wrong, it can haunt you (like hrc).  keep in mind, his narrative isn't "i served", his narrative is, "we are polar opposites".

everything he can do to drive that point home is worth it.

and btw, if this was a year from now, and pete was the nominee, and we could tell that hammering the military stuff wasn't working, then we could at least get into a discussion that made sense.  but this is reaching, even for you.

[Gil Bang 26020]

I know a few soldiers that think Trump's a buffoon.  They are particularly offended by him lying over and over about the "first pay raise in 10 years".  Trust me, soldiers know when they have and have not received a pay increase.  

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Whether you agreed with the Swift Boat stuff and controversy over Kerry’s protests or not, acting like John Kerry had a normal, nondescript veteran candidacy is also ludicrous.

And yet he still outperformed Hillary with military voters by seven full percentage points. That'd be worth about 50,000 votes. I guess that's not an "appreciable number" though, @bad_teammate?

It's almost like the entire military doesn't vote as one bloc, and that better/different candidates can change the margins for various different demographics. It's almost like a bunch of us are arguing a stupid point made by an agenda-driven poster who is never going to discuss this with any level of intellectual honesty and we should stop. Or at least I should. Peace.

Edited May 23, 2019 by BradInATX

[henrygandorf 29194]

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

And yet he still outperformed Hillary with military voters by seven full percentage points. That'd be worth about 50,000 votes. I guess that's not an "appreciable number" though, @bad_teammate?

It's almost like the entire military doesn't vote as one bloc, and that better/different candidates can change the margins for various different demographics. It's almost like a bunch of us are arguing a stupid point made by an agenda-driven poster who is never going to discuss this with any level of intellectual honesty and we should stop. Or at least I should. Peace.

appreciable, by definition, when referring to presidential votes, is anything above 50,001.

wait here, i'll go get the link.

[TexEx15 17568]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

2020 Military voters are going to prefer Trump to literally every other D candidate

What is the confidence of this statement grounded in?

[Biff Tannen 45742]

And yet another 2020 candidate thread has devolved into poo flinging from B_T and those who keep engaging him.

[bad_teammate 13224]

4 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

What is the confidence of this statement grounded in?

The voting history of the enlisted/veteran population.

Does anyone seriously believe that Pete Buttigieg would win more enlisted/veteran voters than Donald Trump?

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

Whether you agreed with the Swift Boat stuff and controversy over Kerry’s protests or not, acting like John Kerry had a normal, nondescript veteran candidacy is also ludicrous. 

You're right in saying that his service record was not normal and non-descript; Kerry served in active combat in a dangerous situation and received multiple combat commendations. The "Swift Boat stuff" was an astroturfed attack on a veteran Democrat which... will absolutely happen again. Unless you're arguing that the "Swift Boat stuff" was legitimate...

Or maybe you think the right will just cower in fear of Pete's moral righteousness? lol

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

second of all, there is literally zero downside to mentioning it when you can.  he's not campaigning on it, but it's an easy way to poke trump, and voters understand it.

If he talks about it constantly then he's campaigning on it.

Sure, bring it up sometimes, I guess, but it's not an important part of any kind of winning strategy. Pete isn't appealing to anyone but rich white liberals right now, and I asked some questions about how Pete is reaching out to military voters which were ignored in favor of the usual "whine about who is speaking rather than talking about the substance" thing that happens here.

[TexEx15 17568]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Does anyone seriously believe that Pete Buttigieg would win more enlisted/veteran voters than Donald Trump?

When did you serve?

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, TexEx15 said:

When did you serve?

Dodge the question. Go after the speaker.

[kevwun 15897]

You don't understand, he exists to shit on everything not named Bernie Sanders.  There is no point in trying to talk to him. 

Edited May 23, 2019 by kevwun

[TexEx15 17568]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Dodge the question. Go after the speaker.

I thought so.  Yes I do think more military and veterans will vote for Pete.  GTFO with your schtick.

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure, bring it up sometimes, I guess, but it's not an important part of any kind of winning strategy. 

For Bernie, maybe. Every candidate has their own life experiences that help them strategy-wise. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, TexEx15 said:

I thought so.  Yes I do think more military and veterans will vote for Pete.  GTFO with your schtick.

What is Pete's appeal to the military voter? What's his actual message? What is he selling them on?

Anyone? Can any of you talk some kind of substance?
 

[TexEx15 17568]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What is Pete's appeal to the military voter? What's his actual message? What is he selling them on?

Anyone? Can any of you talk some kind of substance?
 

His experience in a war zone appeals to veterans and military especially compared to Trump.  

His approach to inclusion matters.  Believe it or not most military folks are not bigoted  assholes worried about a transgender person serving next to them so long as they pull their weight.

His ability to string together coherent sentences matter.  His ability to represent this country without bowing down to our adversaries matters.

[henrygandorf 29194]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The voting history of the enlisted/veteran population.

Does anyone seriously believe that Pete Buttigieg would win more enlisted/veteran voters than Donald Trump?

hmm, ok.  so does it only matter if pete gets more military votes than trump?  does it not count if he narrows the gap, or completely closes it?

let's say there are what, 1.25mm active military, and let's say about half voted.  so we're talking about ~600k voters.  let's scrape off some 3rd party nonsense and call it 500k (for 2016).

in 2016, where hillary was not popular, and trump was not yet exposed as a fraud, criminal, and non-friend of the military, he probably got 375k to hillary's 125k.  is that fair?  i know trump got a lot of military voters because the male/female split is typically drastic, so it may have even been 400/100.

if the election was between pete and trump, i think those figures, assuming the total number stayed the same, could easily close to 300/200, or probably more like 275/225.  so we're talking about the "majority" voting for trump, but still a potential 100k swing for pete.  

yeah, i'd say it's worth mentioning certain facts from time to time.  until you can prove that military voters don't care about that stuff.

[Chuckie Finster 22735]

The military went 61/34 in favor of Trump in 2016.  It's insane to assume that there's no room for improvement there.

[henrygandorf 29194]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I asked some questions about how Pete is reaching out to military voters which were ignored in favor of the usual "whine about who is speaking rather than talking about the substance" thing that happens here.

um, no you didn't. 

you said pete's comments about trump dodging aren't important because it was a bullshit war.  then you said pete wouldn't gain appreciable votes in a general election vs trump among military voters.  then you said trump would outpace any dem with the military.  if you're trying to change the angle on your conversation, that's fine, but at least be up front with it.  it wasn't until your 12th post or so on the subject that you started asking these questions.  but yes, we're all "dishonest".

i do not speak out of experience, because i have not served.  i will defer to texex15 and other military people i've seen interviewed, or overlap with in my daily life for my perspective.  but my perspective is that military voters, in the past, have leaned towards:

-those who have themselves served

-republicans

now often times, those two are the same person.  but this is not often times.  here we have a dem who served, and a republican who dodged (and was a democrat 10 years ago anyway).  there is a stark contrast, and if you can't see it, your eyes are closed.

that said, pete is a proud veteran.  he brings it up because it's part of his story.  he's only 37, so his story isn't that long, and this is part of it, whether you condone his motivations or not, so he's earned the right to mention it, especially when contrasting himself with trump.  i have no idea if he has specific strategy to target local va or veteran groups, or hospitals, or anything like that, but i would be absolutely shocked if it was a segment of voters he ignored.

until you show me evidence that military voters don't like him, or like trump way more than him, we're done here.  and please please bring up hillary.  please bring up old, meaningless stats.

[henrygandorf 29194]

8 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The military went 61/34 in favor of Trump in 2016.  It's insane to assume that there's no room for improvement there.

oh man, perfect.  so if my 600k number is accurate, it's more like 360/200 and that was fucking hillary.

sir, i would like to amend my prediction.  if it's pete vs trump, pete would get more military votes.

[TexLonghorn 5671]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

How did that go for Dukakis (a veteran) or Kerry (a veteran)?

They were both running against candidates who were also (a veteran), or at least active duty in a military organization.  Trump doesn't have that on his resume.  Dodging service reads a little different.

 

46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Dodge the question. Go after the speaker.

Hell, you complained about someone dodging a question.  Surely Buttigieg can gain some ground unifying people against the dude who dodged a war?

Edited May 23, 2019 by TexLonghorn

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

hmm, ok.  so does it only matter if pete gets more military votes than trump?  does it not count if he narrows the gap, or completely closes it?

I didn't say it only matters in that case, people are here saying Pete could/will outright win the military and I think that's absurd.

Obviously every vote helps. As I've said repeatedly, it's fine to throw that stuff out occasionally, but it is not a smart central piece of the overall narrative given the voting history of enlisted/veteran voting habits.

If winning is what matters, of course. If feeling morally superior is all that matters, which is actually true for many liberals, then I guess it's vital.

But as I asked before, if Pete's going to play the "win the military voters" card, what's his actual pitch? What's his move? What is he offering them? That's actually important when you go to a voting base to try and win them over; you have to be offering them something.

Does Pete have a record as a champion for the enlisted/veteran? Organizations? Awards? Movements? Connections?

Or is it literally just a less credible version of this:

1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

His experience in a war zone appeals to veterans and military especially compared to Trump.  

I'll have to see evidence before I believe this, because that hasn't borne out basically at all in any major election I've seen with Democrats with combat experience.

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The military went 61/34 in favor of Trump in 2016.  It's insane to assume that there's no room for improvement there.

Sure, there's room for improvement, but that also makes the idea that Pete would outright WIN the enlisted/veteran vote completely laughable.

And again, Trump was a largely-disliked person who was known to be a draft dodger already and who had openly insulted the service of multiple decorated veterans.

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

oh man, perfect.  so if my 600k number is accurate, it's more like 360/200 and that was fucking hillary.

I'm confused now.

ATX says that Kerry beating Hillary by SEVEN FULL POINTS among military voters was a sign that military experience in the Democratic candidate matters. But here it's like Hillary was universally weak? 

[henrygandorf 29194]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's a stupid line of attack and will accomplish nothing.

 

5 hours ago, achooloco said:

Maybe it could sway military voters, not saying it definitely will, just saying vis-à-vis dotard, i can see how it COULD be influential. 

 

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Now, with 4 years of photo ops with the troops, does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?

 

4 hours ago, Jograves said:

I don't know if it'll be Pete necessarily, but I think most military members want strong leadership at the top. He's proven to be the antithesis of that. Hammer at that and his draft dodging and some of those military votes can be swiped. 

 

4 hours ago, BradInATX said:

So your incorrect assertion that Pete can't pull a single military voter away from Trump means that he shouldn't even try?

 

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

me: "... does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?"

You're dishonest.

 

4 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Last election was won by what, 60,000 votes? ANY vote is an "appreciable number".  But you already know that.

 

4 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yes.  They wouldn't vote for Hillary, but an appreciable number will vote for Pete. 

 

4 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

As a veteran I say yes he will.

 

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

2020 Military voters are going to prefer Trump to literally every other D candidate

 

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

possibly, but are you honestly saying the delta will mirror 2016?

 

3 hours ago, BradInATX said:

And yet he still outperformed Hillary with military voters by seven full percentage points. That'd be worth about 50,000 votes. I guess that's not an "appreciable number" though,

 

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Does anyone seriously believe that Pete Buttigieg would win more enlisted/veteran voters than Donald Trump?

 

2 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

I thought so.  Yes I do think more military and veterans will vote for Pete.  GTFO with your schtick.

 

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I didn't say it only matters in that case, people are here saying Pete could/will outright win the military and I think that's absurd.

ok, i think that's a pretty good cliff's notes of this specific discussion.

you started by saying it was "stupid" and would accomplish "nothing."  then you shifted to "an appreciable amount" which many said yes, he could steal an appreciable amount, whatever that means.  then you asked whether he would actually win more than trump, and went as far as to say "people" are saying he could/will win more.  talk about moving the goalposts, good lord. 

as for those "people"-

texex15 is either saying he'll do better than previously, or he'll actually win (i actually couldn't tell).  i also went "on the record" and said it would be done, but regardless, he'll certainly bridge the huge gap left by hillary, even if he doesn't necessarily win 50.1% of the military vote.

in these specific circumstances, him getting close or taking the military vote isn't "laughable" or "absurd".  but even if he doesn't, he could certainly steal 50-100k of those, which i think is not only possible, but probable.

like many americans, military folk (especially male military) don't really like voting for women for president.  that really hurt hillary, as did other factors.  i think there's no doubt pete takes a bite.  unfortunately, we'll likely never find out.

[henrygandorf 29194]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm confused now.

i totally understand.  my wife is bad at math too.  just go slow, and it helps if you write things down.  makes it easier to visualize the problem.

[Gil Bang 26020]

It's just dumb to count military AND veterans together.  

For starters, the military is obviously younger than the veterans.   Pete's gonna do better with young folks than older folks.  That's just common sense. 99% of senile fucks over 70 support Trump, to their own detriment. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Two people saying Pete would beat Trump among enlisted/veteran and I'm the crazy one? lol fuck

henry, what is Pete's appeal to enlisted/veteran voters? Is it something beyond "I served in the Naval Reserves in Afghanistan as an officer 10 years after the war was over and Donald Trump dodged the Vietnam draft"?

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Is it something beyond "I served in the Naval Reserves in Afghanistan as an officer 10 years after the war was over and Donald Trump dodged the Vietnam draft"?

ask a question like a non-asshole and i'll be happy to share my opinion.

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

ask a question like a non-asshole and i'll be happy to share my opinion.

When you DEFINITELY have a great answer ready to hand lol

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

When you DEFINITELY have a great answer ready to hand lol

 

yes.  clearly i'm the one here arguing in bad faith.