I don't know why people try to re-write history of how the coronavirus started and how they would have reacted. No one here took it seriously before PJ cancelled their tour. Which means no democrat was taking it seriously at the time or their would be records of it in this forum. Did Trump start the travel bans before or after the tour was cancelled? I do not know offhand.
Bullshit. This thread is proof that you are absolutely wrong.
Edit: thought I was in the coronavirus thread. Go there to find out how wrong you are.
I went to go find how wrong i was! went to dairy queen instead.
Its okay to admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
Battleground states RCP avg: AZ...Biden +4 Fl...Biden +3.3 MI....Biden +5.5 NV....Biden +4 NC.....Trump +1 OH.....not enough polling yet PA....Biden up 6.5 TX.......Trump up 2.5 (wow!) VA.....Biden up 9.7 WI....Bide up 2.7
So far so good, especially considering the Tara Reade story/non story and Trump's barrage of negative nonsense. Hasn't really knocked Biden off his lead.
Here's a contrary take. Not saying I buy into all of it, but it's interesting. If I had to place a bet today, I'd still put it on Biden.
I don't quite follow the argument. He's basically saying.. yeah Biden is doing well now because he's surging. And he's surging because D's are coming around to him. Okay but D's coming around is not a short term surge, that's a step change. Now maybe he is surging. And maybe for random reasons but also because people have come to the conclusion that the Tara Reade story is BS. So at the end of the day, I'm not sure how this is bad for Biden, as the author wants to believe.
And he's not even "surging." That doesn't make sense. His numbers have remained quite steady for a good period of time. That bodes well, especially since it hasn't moved much since Trump started attacking him.
It's the Washington Examiner. There's an agenda there, obviously.
Edit---ha...he's only talking about the one Q poll. My post was in reference to the overall average of Biden up by over 5%. Always look for the average, folks.
I think he may be surging. But that's not a bad thing. Fox poll up by 8
Battleground states RCP avg: AZ...Biden +4 Fl...Biden +3.3 MI....Biden +5.5 NV....Biden +4 NC.....Trump +1 OH.....not enough polling yet PA....Biden up 6.5 TX.......Trump up 2.5 (wow!) VA.....Biden up 9.7 WI....Bide up 2.7
So far so good, especially considering the Tara Reade story/non story and Trump's barrage of negative nonsense. Hasn't really knocked Biden off his lead.
Here's a contrary take. Not saying I buy into all of it, but it's interesting. If I had to place a bet today, I'd still put it on Biden.
I don't quite follow the argument. He's basically saying.. yeah Biden is doing well now because he's surging. And he's surging because D's are coming around to him. Okay but D's coming around is not a short term surge, that's a step change. Now maybe he is surging. And maybe for random reasons but also because people have come to the conclusion that the Tara Reade story is BS. So at the end of the day, I'm not sure how this is bad for Biden, as the author wants to believe.
And he's not even "surging." That doesn't make sense. His numbers have remained quite steady for a good period of time. That bodes well, especially since it hasn't moved much since Trump started attacking him.
It's the Washington Examiner. There's an agenda there, obviously.
Edit---ha...he's only talking about the one Q poll. My post was in reference to the overall average of Biden up by over 5%. Always look for the average, folks.
I think he may be surging. But that's not a bad thing. Fox poll up by 8
There is a long history of bad feelings between Joe Biden’s inner circle and Elizabeth Warren.
She accused Biden of protecting banks rather than ordinary families during debates over bankruptcy legislation in the 1990s. Later, Obama administration officials regularly bad-mouthed Warren for criticizing their response to the financial crisis. And yet Warren has emerged as a serious candidate to be Biden’s vice president, as Adam Nagourney and Jonathan Martin explain.
To understand why, I think it helps to look at political history. As strange a pair as Biden and Warren might seem, they also might be the ticket that most closely matches successful previous tickets. When pundits talk about the selection process, they often imagine that a vice-presidential nominee can excite voters from the same state or demographic group. But there is little evidence that’s true.
In 2016, Tim Kaine didn’t seem to help Hillary Clinton win more white men. In 2012, Paul Ryan didn’t help Mitt Romney win Wisconsin, and John Edwards didn’t win North Carolina in 2004 for John Kerry.
Only one strategy has a long track record of success: ticket balancing. Winning presidential candidates have often chosen running mates with obviously different political personas — who shore up weaknesses at the top of a ticket.
Consider: Donald Trump, a divorced reality-television star, chose a religious conservative. Barack Obama and George W. Bush, both worried about seeming inexperienced, chose party elders. Ronald Reagan, who was labeled a radical conservative, chose an establishment figure: George H.W. Bush. (Bush’s harsh earlier criticism of Reagan — for “voodoo economics” — is reminiscent of the Biden-Warren history, Adam Nagourney told me.)
Biden’s biggest weakness among the Democratic coalition is young, progressive voters. And many of them are Warren fans. Stan Greenberg, a top Democratic pollster who has pushed for Warren, recently told the Biden campaign that such voters were “dangerously not” united behind Biden.
Biden has multiple options for vice president (and in future newsletters, I’ll focus on others, like Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar). If anything, though, the candidate who seems most different from him may be the one who’s historically most typical.
For more: The Times story has details on the latest conversations between Biden and Warren. Jamelle Bouie, a Times Opinion columnist, has made a case for Warren as the vice president who could get the most done. And a 2019 Politico story had details on the long-running feud between Obama’s team and Warren .
Biden was terrible on Colbert last night. He didn't answer a single question Colbert asked; he just rambled. I understand that not answering questions is par for the course for politicians, but most of them at least know how to execute a pivot.
My favorite moment was when Colbert asked him what his plan would be during the first 100 days of his presidency to get the vaccine widely distributed. After Joe rambled for a few minutes about what he would do if he were president now, he ended with asking Colbert the very question that was asked of him.
There is a long history of bad feelings between Joe Biden’s inner circle and Elizabeth Warren.
She accused Biden of protecting banks rather than ordinary families during debates over bankruptcy legislation in the 1990s. Later, Obama administration officials regularly bad-mouthed Warren for criticizing their response to the financial crisis. And yet Warren has emerged as a serious candidate to be Biden’s vice president, as Adam Nagourney and Jonathan Martin explain.
To understand why, I think it helps to look at political history. As strange a pair as Biden and Warren might seem, they also might be the ticket that most closely matches successful previous tickets. When pundits talk about the selection process, they often imagine that a vice-presidential nominee can excite voters from the same state or demographic group. But there is little evidence that’s true.
In 2016, Tim Kaine didn’t seem to help Hillary Clinton win more white men. In 2012, Paul Ryan didn’t help Mitt Romney win Wisconsin, and John Edwards didn’t win North Carolina in 2004 for John Kerry.
Only one strategy has a long track record of success: ticket balancing. Winning presidential candidates have often chosen running mates with obviously different political personas — who shore up weaknesses at the top of a ticket.
Consider: Donald Trump, a divorced reality-television star, chose a religious conservative. Barack Obama and George W. Bush, both worried about seeming inexperienced, chose party elders. Ronald Reagan, who was labeled a radical conservative, chose an establishment figure: George H.W. Bush. (Bush’s harsh earlier criticism of Reagan — for “voodoo economics” — is reminiscent of the Biden-Warren history, Adam Nagourney told me.)
Biden’s biggest weakness among the Democratic coalition is young, progressive voters. And many of them are Warren fans. Stan Greenberg, a top Democratic pollster who has pushed for Warren, recently told the Biden campaign that such voters were “dangerously not” united behind Biden.
Biden has multiple options for vice president (and in future newsletters, I’ll focus on others, like Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar). If anything, though, the candidate who seems most different from him may be the one who’s historically most typical.
For more: The Times story has details on the latest conversations between Biden and Warren. Jamelle Bouie, a Times Opinion columnist, has made a case for Warren as the vice president who could get the most done. And a 2019 Politico story had details on the long-running feud between Obama’s team and Warren .
Maybe I'm confused, but MA has a Republican governor. If a Biden/Warren ticket wins, the gov appoints the replacement, right? Or do they go straight to a special election? Considering the Senate is up for grabs and every vote matters, I don't know how the party goes that way.
There is a long history of bad feelings between Joe Biden’s inner circle and Elizabeth Warren.
She accused Biden of protecting banks rather than ordinary families during debates over bankruptcy legislation in the 1990s. Later, Obama administration officials regularly bad-mouthed Warren for criticizing their response to the financial crisis. And yet Warren has emerged as a serious candidate to be Biden’s vice president, as Adam Nagourney and Jonathan Martin explain.
To understand why, I think it helps to look at political history. As strange a pair as Biden and Warren might seem, they also might be the ticket that most closely matches successful previous tickets. When pundits talk about the selection process, they often imagine that a vice-presidential nominee can excite voters from the same state or demographic group. But there is little evidence that’s true.
In 2016, Tim Kaine didn’t seem to help Hillary Clinton win more white men. In 2012, Paul Ryan didn’t help Mitt Romney win Wisconsin, and John Edwards didn’t win North Carolina in 2004 for John Kerry.
Only one strategy has a long track record of success: ticket balancing. Winning presidential candidates have often chosen running mates with obviously different political personas — who shore up weaknesses at the top of a ticket.
Consider: Donald Trump, a divorced reality-television star, chose a religious conservative. Barack Obama and George W. Bush, both worried about seeming inexperienced, chose party elders. Ronald Reagan, who was labeled a radical conservative, chose an establishment figure: George H.W. Bush. (Bush’s harsh earlier criticism of Reagan — for “voodoo economics” — is reminiscent of the Biden-Warren history, Adam Nagourney told me.)
Biden’s biggest weakness among the Democratic coalition is young, progressive voters. And many of them are Warren fans. Stan Greenberg, a top Democratic pollster who has pushed for Warren, recently told the Biden campaign that such voters were “dangerously not” united behind Biden.
Biden has multiple options for vice president (and in future newsletters, I’ll focus on others, like Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar). If anything, though, the candidate who seems most different from him may be the one who’s historically most typical.
For more: The Times story has details on the latest conversations between Biden and Warren. Jamelle Bouie, a Times Opinion columnist, has made a case for Warren as the vice president who could get the most done. And a 2019 Politico story had details on the long-running feud between Obama’s team and Warren .
Maybe I'm confused, but MA has a Republican governor. If a Biden/Warren ticket wins, the gov appoints the replacement, right? Or do they go straight to a special election? Considering the Senate is up for grabs and every vote matters, I don't know how the party goes that way.
I think they go to a special election depending upon when the seat is up or how close they are to the election for that seat. Governor appoints someone if it’s less than X amount of time and/or in interim.
MA is a dem state that likes country club repubs and the dems have a deeper bench so depending on when the seat is up and how long the appointment would be, the fear of losing a dem senate seat might not be a concern.
Anyway, speculation on NYT part and I don’t think it’ll be Warren. Although it wouldn’t bother me to have a Native American in the White House.
people know who trump is and a significant majority are rejecting him.
any reasonable person does not want the shit stain on their conscience of having voted for him twice.
Remember one of his key pitches in 16 was "What have you got to lose?" Now we know.. 100k lives and millions of jobs.
If Democrats try to lay the totality of the coronavirus pandemic at his feet, voters will see through that
Trump will be playing hardball. I'm not saying the Biden campaign does it, but a third party should absolutely hammer him on this.
I also think his blaming the Chinese should be an angle for the Dems. Trump blames China, but he's the one that started a trade war he can't finish, and he failed to protect us from a virus originating there. Why should he be given another chance to fail us? Sure maybe some hard left Blues are uncomfortable with that, but they are not staying home.
Man, I don't see any of that. I think it will be even clearer as the months go on that this has been a systemic failure. Every day we're peeling back the onion on how New York fucked up. Trump has done a poor job, but I don't know what that incremental toll really is. There is no way it wasn't going to hit us hard.
Do you think those details would stop Trump from using it in a campaign? It's a fact that Trump had this issue in his security briefings as early as January, and he downplayed it the entire time, until late March. Perhaps NY doesn't get a chance to F up if the CEO of the country isn't avoiding the issue.
If Clinton had won the election, where are you estimating we'd be as a country on cases/deaths today? Currently we are at 1.5 million/93k.
I was actually considering starting a thread on that. One clear difference would be fewer conspiracy theories. A third of the population believes this entire thing is a conspiracy against Trump. I still think just as many people would be upset about stay-at-home orders, maybe even more with a Democrat in the White House, but I think you'd have fewer people just flaunting their non-compliance at grocery stores, etc. These things might be a wash.
I think the two biggest differences would be 1) An earlier response and a president concerned with more than how it impacts the re-election and 2) fewer people existing in the image of an ignorant, angry, moron doing things like refusing to wear masks, etc. What's it mean in numbers? Hard to say. Maybe knocks 'em down by 20%? A third?
we'd have a cohesive coordination between the federal and state governments. We would more testing and PPEs for those that need it. We would have an actual national plan on how to treat people, how to test, and how to get everything back up and running. we would have an adult and a re-assuring bedside manner from our leadership. Maybe deaths wouldn't be much less, but collectively there would be a far superior plan for all aspects of this. also we'd have someone willing to take some form of accountability.
Biden was terrible on Colbert last night. He didn't answer a single question Colbert asked; he just rambled. I understand that not answering questions is par for the course for politicians, but most of them at least know how to execute a pivot.
My favorite moment was when Colbert asked him what his plan would be during the first 100 days of his presidency to get the vaccine widely distributed. After Joe rambled for a few minutes about what he would do if he were president now, he ended with asking Colbert the very question that was asked of him.
Biden was terrible on Colbert last night. He didn't answer a single question Colbert asked; he just rambled. I understand that not answering questions is par for the course for politicians, but most of them at least know how to execute a pivot.
My favorite moment was when Colbert asked him what his plan would be during the first 100 days of his presidency to get the vaccine widely distributed. After Joe rambled for a few minutes about what he would do if he were president now, he ended with asking Colbert the very question that was asked of him.
people know who trump is and a significant majority are rejecting him.
any reasonable person does not want the shit stain on their conscience of having voted for him twice.
Remember one of his key pitches in 16 was "What have you got to lose?" Now we know.. 100k lives and millions of jobs.
If Democrats try to lay the totality of the coronavirus pandemic at his feet, voters will see through that
Trump will be playing hardball. I'm not saying the Biden campaign does it, but a third party should absolutely hammer him on this.
I also think his blaming the Chinese should be an angle for the Dems. Trump blames China, but he's the one that started a trade war he can't finish, and he failed to protect us from a virus originating there. Why should he be given another chance to fail us? Sure maybe some hard left Blues are uncomfortable with that, but they are not staying home.
Man, I don't see any of that. I think it will be even clearer as the months go on that this has been a systemic failure. Every day we're peeling back the onion on how New York fucked up. Trump has done a poor job, but I don't know what that incremental toll really is. There is no way it wasn't going to hit us hard.
Do you think those details would stop Trump from using it in a campaign? It's a fact that Trump had this issue in his security briefings as early as January, and he downplayed it the entire time, until late March. Perhaps NY doesn't get a chance to F up if the CEO of the country isn't avoiding the issue.
If Clinton had won the election, where are you estimating we'd be as a country on cases/deaths today? Currently we are at 1.5 million/93k.
I was actually considering starting a thread on that. One clear difference would be fewer conspiracy theories. A third of the population believes this entire thing is a conspiracy against Trump. I still think just as many people would be upset about stay-at-home orders, maybe even more with a Democrat in the White House, but I think you'd have fewer people just flaunting their non-compliance at grocery stores, etc. These things might be a wash.
I think the two biggest differences would be 1) An earlier response and a president concerned with more than how it impacts the re-election and 2) fewer people existing in the image of an ignorant, angry, moron doing things like refusing to wear masks, etc. What's it mean in numbers? Hard to say. Maybe knocks 'em down by 20%? A third?
Maybe just start an "alternate past" thread where we can go back and forth about things that will never have a proven answer. I'll start with this as an example. Who won the Alternate Past World Series in 1994? My money is on the Expos because Moises Alou would have worn batting gloves in his alternate past.
people know who trump is and a significant majority are rejecting him.
any reasonable person does not want the shit stain on their conscience of having voted for him twice.
Remember one of his key pitches in 16 was "What have you got to lose?" Now we know.. 100k lives and millions of jobs.
If Democrats try to lay the totality of the coronavirus pandemic at his feet, voters will see through that
Trump will be playing hardball. I'm not saying the Biden campaign does it, but a third party should absolutely hammer him on this.
I also think his blaming the Chinese should be an angle for the Dems. Trump blames China, but he's the one that started a trade war he can't finish, and he failed to protect us from a virus originating there. Why should he be given another chance to fail us? Sure maybe some hard left Blues are uncomfortable with that, but they are not staying home.
Man, I don't see any of that. I think it will be even clearer as the months go on that this has been a systemic failure. Every day we're peeling back the onion on how New York fucked up. Trump has done a poor job, but I don't know what that incremental toll really is. There is no way it wasn't going to hit us hard.
Do you think those details would stop Trump from using it in a campaign? It's a fact that Trump had this issue in his security briefings as early as January, and he downplayed it the entire time, until late March. Perhaps NY doesn't get a chance to F up if the CEO of the country isn't avoiding the issue.
If Clinton had won the election, where are you estimating we'd be as a country on cases/deaths today? Currently we are at 1.5 million/93k.
I was actually considering starting a thread on that. One clear difference would be fewer conspiracy theories. A third of the population believes this entire thing is a conspiracy against Trump. I still think just as many people would be upset about stay-at-home orders, maybe even more with a Democrat in the White House, but I think you'd have fewer people just flaunting their non-compliance at grocery stores, etc. These things might be a wash.
I think the two biggest differences would be 1) An earlier response and a president concerned with more than how it impacts the re-election and 2) fewer people existing in the image of an ignorant, angry, moron doing things like refusing to wear masks, etc. What's it mean in numbers? Hard to say. Maybe knocks 'em down by 20%? A third?
Maybe just start an "alternate past" thread where we can go back and forth about things that will never have a proven answer. I'll start with this as an example. Who won the Alternate Past World Series in 1994? My money is on the Expos because Moises Alou would have worn batting gloves in his alternate past.
I have a fake Washington Post saying the Nats won.
I also have the 89 St Pete Giants losing to the A's. I was bitterly disappointed.
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
I'm sure black voters will love that one.
This is really awful. I listened to the audio and he isn’t saying it lightly. I guess we will just have to chalk it up as one of his trademark gaffes and look past it 🙄. So now the media isn’t allowed to ask substantive policy questions to the candidate on the plans affecting specific communities. Really bad form and one of the reasons that I don’t think Biden has victory secured as much as many believe.
Let's face it, this election comes down to choosing between someone we know is consistently a terrible president and will never ever be even an average president, or someone who will at worst be an average president, but probably not great. For me it's more about getting positions filled with people who actually know what the fuck they're doing and not just there because they know how to kiss ass. That, and the end of the blame game and tweeting nonsense.
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
I'm sure black voters will love that one.
This is really awful. I listened to the audio and he isn’t saying it lightly. I guess we will just have to chalk it up as one of his trademark gaffes and look past it 🙄. So now the media isn’t allowed to ask substantive policy questions to the candidate on the plans affecting specific communities. Really bad form and one of the reasons that I don’t think Biden has victory secured as much as many believe.
Yeah it's hard to believe anybody so experienced in politics would say that. And like you said, he didn't say it lightly. I don't know much about Charlemagne The God, but I imagine he has a pretty popular show and Joe went on it specifically to appeal to black voters. Well hearing some old white man tell you "You ain't black" for ANYTHING wouldn't be appealing. Let alone "you ain't black" if you vote against him.
I think what we learned in the primaries is that millennial white liberals are FAR more sensitive than average people and minorities. His resiliency shows that. And look at Northams approval rate with minorities in Virginia for further proof. Im sure black people all appreciate your concern though.
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
I'm sure black voters will love that one.
This is really awful. I listened to the audio and he isn’t saying it lightly. I guess we will just have to chalk it up as one of his trademark gaffes and look past it 🙄. So now the media isn’t allowed to ask substantive policy questions to the candidate on the plans affecting specific communities. Really bad form and one of the reasons that I don’t think Biden has victory secured as much as many believe.
Yeah it's hard to believe anybody so experienced in politics would say that. And like you said, he didn't say it lightly. I don't know much about Charlemagne The God, but I imagine he has a pretty popular show and Joe went on it specifically to appeal to black voters. Well hearing some old white man tell you "You ain't black" for ANYTHING wouldn't be appealing. Let alone "you ain't black" if you vote against him.
Comments
Hope you enjoy your banana split.
https://apple.news/AhTMdkQVcQO-_du_uHyeaLw
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/499077-fox-news-poll-biden-leads-trump-by-8-points-nationally
This is fucking beautiful...they are going to drive tRump absolutely infuckingsane with this stuff
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Biden-Warren: Really?
There is a long history of bad feelings between Joe Biden’s inner circle and Elizabeth Warren.
And yet Warren has emerged as a serious candidate to be Biden’s vice president, as Adam Nagourney and Jonathan Martin explain.
When pundits talk about the selection process, they often imagine that a vice-presidential nominee can excite voters from the same state or demographic group. But there is little evidence that’s true.
In 2016, Tim Kaine didn’t seem to help Hillary Clinton win more white men. In 2012, Paul Ryan didn’t help Mitt Romney win Wisconsin, and John Edwards didn’t win North Carolina in 2004 for John Kerry.
Only one strategy has a long track record of success: ticket balancing. Winning presidential candidates have often chosen running mates with obviously different political personas — who shore up weaknesses at the top of a ticket.
Biden’s biggest weakness among the Democratic coalition is young, progressive voters. And many of them are Warren fans. Stan Greenberg, a top Democratic pollster who has pushed for Warren, recently told the Biden campaign that such voters were “dangerously not” united behind Biden.
For more: The Times story has details on the latest conversations between Biden and Warren. Jamelle Bouie, a Times Opinion columnist, has made a case for Warren as the vice president who could get the most done. And a 2019 Politico story had details on the long-running feud between Obama’s team and Warren .
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
My favorite moment was when Colbert asked him what his plan would be during the first 100 days of his presidency to get the vaccine widely distributed. After Joe rambled for a few minutes about what he would do if he were president now, he ended with asking Colbert the very question that was asked of him.
4:25-7:00
MA is a dem state that likes country club repubs and the dems have a deeper bench so depending on when the seat is up and how long the appointment would be, the fear of losing a dem senate seat might not be a concern.
Anyway, speculation on NYT part and I don’t think it’ll be Warren. Although it wouldn’t bother me to have a Native American in the White House.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
You know it's bad when he's touting the one from the organization he think's is "fake news" that shows him only down 5 points.
At this point, it's akin to Monty Python's "Upper Class Twit of th Year" sketch.
Who will be able to jump over these matchbooks?
I'm sure black voters will love that one.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
https://apple.news/A_EN5FxqwQw6lFiRMRASofQ
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I also have the 89 St Pete Giants losing to the A's. I was bitterly disappointed.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com