I don't know what she meant but I thought of the old Solid South, which had a strong blue tradition between Reconstruction and the 1960s-70s.Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.Did they call him a viable candidate again?Technically if he keeps the traditional Red States, and gets Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Ohio, he can squeak into victory with 278 Electoral Votes even if he loses the Popular vote the way Bush 1.0 got in.
Since the last election, Florida has doubled down on denying ex-felons, a largely Democratic population the vote, and New Hampshire is still New Hampshire, as well as Texas. Ohio may be too swingy to call yet.
If Texas is even in question, he's lost. It's certainly considered one of the traditional Red States, so I'm not sure what you're calling "Traditional red".
Romney got 206 electoral votes, including Texas. Adding Florida, NH & Ohio to that gets him 257, not enough to win. His chances of winning all three of them and whatever else you think is traditional are slim.
According to 538's wonderful little snake diagram, he'd have to take Iowa, Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, all of which are currently at least leaning towards Clinton. (Or some other, even less likely states. Those are his best chances.)
It's certainly possible. Even now, something could happen to shake up the race. The polling could be massively overstating Clinton's lead across the board.
But you've been predicting a Clinton disaster all along and it keeps not happening. Forgive me for thinking you're off now as well.
That Blue Tradition ended when the Democrats got the Civil Rights Bill passed. The Boll Weevil Democrats bolted the party in the infamous 1968 Convention, and joined the Republicans. In a situation much like what happened to the Republicans today, the Democrats wound up splitting between George Wallace and Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon was elected by a landslide. (this is also back when Conventions were more than just ceremonies to crown the presumptive nominee.)
New Hampshire hasn't gone Republican since Al Gore. I'll take bets that it goes to Clinton. To make the chances more even, know that I am working against myself and will be campaigning for Jill Stein.
If you want, we can even do the whole "if-I'm-wrong-I-will-vacate-Paizo-for-four-years" thing I did last time.
No running away where we can't poke you with sticks if you're wrong!
We'll need some form of solace darn it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't we had enough people vacate Paizo this year.
There has to be a better bet. :-)
All I know is I wish Wil Wheaton would show up at my FLGS along with Chris Pramas to film the next installment of Titansgrave.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This topic is kinda pointless. At this point, everyone has their fingers in their ears. No matter what information comes out, people have decided.
People know Hillary released confidential emails, deleted 15 emails before they could be analyzed, authorized drone strikes via text message on her phone, and lied in house hearings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myl7HJjD6P4 there is a ton of videos about her at the hearing, and then there is where her donations come from.
People know Trump has said stupid things. Yes, he said he would pay legal bills to the people at the rallies and then went back on it, said he wanted a ridiculous wall, scammed people with trump university, got a tax break for 20 years, made lewd comments about people, and had poor hiring practices.
The voters really, are done. There is no more swaying. Many people decided before even hearing anything, which is a terrible shame. Many voters don't want to be informed and don't want to spend the time to educated themselves about the activities of either candidate. Politifact exists, video archives on youtube exists of their activities, and so on. People simply want to think they know it all and show so much cognitive dissonance whenever their chosen candidate does something bad. Frankly, I am disgusted when people vote and all their information comes from campaign commercials and just the debates. Do some research. The uninformed voter should not exist.
Edit: Take emotion out of your decisions entirely and just think. Don't look at which candidate is better. Rather, think if either of them is any good as president at all. Based on how they act, what they say, and what has been proven true or false about their histories, in and out of the campaign. If you think both aren't really that good, then are you really comfortable voting for either?
hey even if you don't like either candidate for president. peeps need to still go out and vote for your locals.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Embattled Ron Johnson, getting his ass handed to him in the polls, says he doesn't put much stock into climate change, because "mankind has actually flourished in warmer temperatures." and my personal favorite "How many people are moving up toward the Antarctica, or the Arctic? Most people move down to Texas and Florida, where it's a little bit warmer"
I mean, look at the middle east, it's the happiest place on earth!
Hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha!
And what would life be without our token Red Radical?New Hampshire hasn't gone Republican since Al Gore. I'll take bets that it goes to Clinton. To make the chances more even, know that I am working against myself and will be campaigning for Jill Stein.
If you want, we can even do the whole "if-I'm-wrong-I-will-vacate-Paizo-for-four-years" thing I did last time.
There's two of us now [Fistbumps Comrade Fergie]
Anyway, we can bet something else. Like I have to parade around in my red speedos for a week or something.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what would life be without our token Red Radical?New Hampshire hasn't gone Republican since Al Gore. I'll take bets that it goes to Clinton. To make the chances more even, know that I am working against myself and will be campaigning for Jill Stein.
If you want, we can even do the whole "if-I'm-wrong-I-will-vacate-Paizo-for-four-years" thing I did last time.
There's two of us now [Fistbumps Comrade Fergie]
Anyway, we can bet something else. Like I have to parade around in my red speedos for a week or something.
You don't do that already?
No that was classic Ron Johnson, that's not the stupidest thing he said, but it's awfully close. :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every four years we saw an ever escalating amount of money invested into the presidential candidates. Obama and Romney set new records in 2012, which had been set in 2008, and so on. Of course, no amount of laws could ever hope to stop it, the monied interests would find some way to get around it.
But Trump has shown how to get around that. He has used social media to get his message out and bypass the gatekeepers. He accomplished this with a fraction of the money other candidates spend. He has provided a roadmap for candidates in the future, and as they follow it the billionaires will lose influence as their money can’t buy social media followers or counter the messages which spread virally from smaller internet communities.
Trump accomplished NONE of that. It was GIVEN to him by the media, an estimated billion dollars worth of free publicity, because of the decades he's spent being a sideshow attraction. They do it because Trump means ratings.
No that was classic Ron Johnson, that's not the stupidest thing he said, but it's awfully close. :-)
Hmmm Ron Johnson, Gary Johnson, Hank Johnson... WHAT'S WRONG WITH OUR JOHNSONS?!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No that was classic Ron Johnson, that's not the stupidest thing he said, but it's awfully close. :-)Hmmm Ron Johnson, Gary Johnson, Hank Johnson... WHAT'S WRONG WITH OUR JOHNSONS?!
Don't know about the rest of you, but my johnson works just fine.
Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.Did they call him a viable candidate again?Technically if he keeps the traditional Red States, and gets Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Ohio, he can squeak into victory with 278 Electoral Votes even if he loses the Popular vote the way Bush 1.0 got in.
Since the last election, Florida has doubled down on denying ex-felons, a largely Democratic population the vote, and New Hampshire is still New Hampshire, as well as Texas. Ohio may be too swingy to call yet.
I can at the very least confirm that west-side Cincinnati will be swept by Trump voters. I see signs in every other yard on my way to work and school. I've been told by a friend up at Kent that Hillary supporters are more prevalent up there, or at least the Trump supporters are less open about it. Of course, I live in a suburban neighborhood with a predominantly white and Christian demographic while my friend lives on a college campus, so that might skew things both ways.
538 has Clinton ahead in Ohio, giving her a 60% chance of victory. That being said, she can lose every state closer than Pennsylvania, where they give her an 87% chance and polls show her up a minimum of 5 points, and she would still win electoral college victory. Pennsylvania is stronger for Clinton than Texas is for Trump.
538 has Clinton ahead in Ohio, giving her a 60% chance of victory. That being said, she can lose every state closer than Pennsylvania, where they give her an 87% chance and polls show her up a minimum of 5 points, and she would still win electoral college victory. Pennsylvania is stronger for Clinton than Texas is for Trump.
I will believe that Pennsylvania has gone Blue when I see it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one controls Donald Trump...
...not even Donald Trump!
Don't know about the rest of you, but my johnson works just fine.
Lemme check... OK, mine's still there, anyway...
I am honestly depressed when I see people that really think either of these two people are good, competent, qualified people to take the office of president.Please - whatever you may think of Clinton as a person, she is both competent and qualified to be President. "Competent and qualified" has nothing to do with "agrees with me on positions" - it's about whether the person has the skills/experience/knowledge to do the job. In fact, she's the only candidate in the race about whom that can be said.
I would say that Clinton is every bit as "Competent and qualified" as Dick Cheney. Having the skills/experience/knowledge means very little if you have almost no morality to go with it. The Clinton's have spent decades doing the bidding of chicken hawks and the investor class, with disastrous results for most Americans, as well as many others around the world.
I have heard some say that we are heading for another recession or worse, and that having someone like Clinton in office will be the final death knell of neo-liberal ideology. That seems unlikely given the way voters forgive past horrible presidents like Reagan and Bush. I sincerely hope that if things get bad, it won't also drag down positive social strides that have been made recently in terms of marriage equality, etc.
Anyway, I'm am still a genuine undecided voter. I will not be voting for Trump or Clinton, but I don't know if it is worth it to vote for a third party candidate, a write-in, none-of-the-above, leave it blank, etc.
EDIT: I spent some time around Iowa and rural Indiana this past July. While I don't know about Des Moines, the rest of Iowa was VERY pro Trump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I spent some time around Iowa and rural Indiana this past July. While I don't know about Des Moines, the rest of Iowa was VERY pro Trump.
Actually, most of the country looks like that. Democratic votes are concentrated in medium-sized to large cities; rural areas are strongly Republican. If you discount Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the rest of Pennsylvania is as red as Mississippi; if you discount Portland and Eugene, Oregon is as red as Idaho, and so forth.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that Clinton is every bit as "Competent and qualified" as Dick Cheney. Having the skills/experience/knowledge means very little if you have almost no morality to go with it. The Clinton's have spent decades doing the bidding of chicken hawks and the investor class, with disastrous results for most Americans, as well as many others around the world.
I have heard some say that we are heading for another recession or worse, and that having someone like Clinton in office will be the final death knell of neo-liberal ideology. That seems unlikely given the way voters forgive past horrible presidents like Reagan and Bush. I sincerely hope that if things get bad, it won't also drag down positive social strides that have been made recently in terms of marriage equality, etc.
Anyway, I'm am still a genuine undecided voter. I will not be voting for Trump or Clinton, but I don't know if it is worth it to vote for a third party candidate, a write-in, none-of-the-above, leave it blank, etc.
I'm not going to buy into the line that Clinton has no morality, nor regard for the weak. Her work as First Lady is clear proof that it's not true. Elizabeth Warren herself will attest to that. She even pressured her husband to do a complete turnaround on a bad bankruptcy bill. Her history as a Senator complicates things, but in all fairness she is as bog-standard a Democrat as you can get. The problem is that the Fox Media machine has spent decades in purveying a message that isn't true, but it's been so persistent in playing that to the public conciousness that it feels right all out of proportion to any factual basis.
Hillary Clinton is being held to standards no other Democrat has been because she is both a Clinton, and a woman. I'm not sure which crime is worse.
I see the problem here, there is a difference between a tax break and a tax cut.
Tax cuts are for everyone. Tax breaks are for your rich friends.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".
I spent some time around Iowa and rural Indiana this past July. While I don't know about Des Moines, the rest of Iowa was VERY pro Trump.Actually, most of the country looks like that. Democratic votes are concentrated in medium-sized to large cities; rural areas are strongly Republican. If you discount Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the rest of Pennsylvania is as red as Mississippi; if you discount Portland and Eugene, Oregon is as red as Idaho, and so forth.
By county, Mississippi looks like it was more pro-Obama. Of the states 82 counties, 31 voted for Obama. Compared to Pennsylvania's 13 out of 67.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".
So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."
And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."
And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.
I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but the Log Cabin Republicans are doing right! ;)
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?"
No, just that unless you're going to call 20% of homosexuals self hating it's entirely possible that he's voting for trump and doesn't hate the LGBT crowd.
He may just hate some other group that trump wants to make life terrible for.
Ah, crab mentality then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just got (angrily) called a regressive leftist Marxist by a student while TAing at my university. Thought you might be pleased to hear that, Comrade.
Doubt it. For some the lack of media coverage would be proof that he's right.
*agrees with Drah* While I'd like to think Pennsylvania would go blue, I know the area around York County and Lancaster County to be quite red.
In other news WTFery, Alex Jones says Billy Bush was a CIA deep mole to set up Trump.
Warning: If this is your first experience of Alex Jones, best not to look the Abyss head on, sorta observe in your peripheral vision until the SAN drain dulls your brain pain.
I would make some sort of parody alias for Alex Jones, but there aren't any avatars that do him justice.
With Krump, I just filled a niche nobody else had wanted to tackle. And I felt like I should be the one to do it. ;P
I'd need a D&D monster race pun for Jones, unfortunately, and "pugwampi" doesn't fit in any good wordplay.