Jump to content

~Official 2020 Congressional and State Races Thread~

SaysWho?
 Share

Recommended Posts

SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, Jose said:

 

jigs was an actual piece of shit alcoholic whose wife divorced him because he was abusive. So definitely good riddance there.

 

If you thought jigs was bad, engel's actual racism (guy actually said he wished the white race wouldn't have gone down without a fight) was terr-bul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

If you thought jigs was bad, engel's actual racism (guy actually said he wished the white race wouldn't have gone down without a fight) was terr-bul.

 

How do I not remember that holy shit. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

How do I not remember that holy shit. :lol:

 

The posts were deleted. Everyman and Engel were trying to recreate Stormfront. Everyman said, "Freeing the slaves was one of the biggest mistakes the white man made." And then Engel said that. And then Everyman was such a wuss that when I called him out on it, he went "herp derp no I never said that!" Because racists are wussies. 

 

Fuck both of those losers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CayceG

CayceG

Posted
Posted

I participated in electoralism today. But outside my polling place, the guy that's running as a primary challenger to my state rep was talking to people. I talked with him for about 15 minutes prior to voting. He wasn't really appreciably different than my present rep, but he's different. I'm giving him a shot for 2 years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Quite the commotion in Colorado: Senator Gardner requests Republicans take an ad down four months after the family of some of the deceased in the ad asked them too. Family is not pleased.

 

Backstory:

 

Quote

The ad criticizes Hickenlooper over a deadly gas explosion in the state in 2017. After the spot began airing last week, Erin Martinez, whose husband and brother died in the explosion, called it “horrifying” and said it disgraced her family members’ legacy. Hickenlooper and Democrats in the state echoed her calls for it to be taken down.

 

Quote

"I spoke to Erin Martinez today and expressed to her that I would not have personally run the ad, and I hope the ad comes down," Gardner said in the statement. "If I had the power to take down the ad, I would."

 

Martinez, in a statement provided by a spokesperson, said she was glad Gardner called for the ad to be taken down but expressed regret that he did not contact her or make the declaration sooner.

 

"While I am glad that Sen. Gardner has finally realized the ad should be taken down, I am sorry that it has taken him and his staff more than four days to respond to my phone call and request for some relief for my family," Martinez said in the emailed statement. "Our family’s trauma should not be the subject of a horrible political ad. We have worked very hard to create a positive legacy for my husband Mark and my brother Joey to ensure no one relives our nightmare.

 

"Sen. Gardner underestimates his power to have the ad taken down if he publicly speaks forcefully to make it happen," Martinez added. "After talking to him, I wonder if he really understands the harm the ad has inflicted."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted

538 has a great story up dealing with Collins and Gardner:

 

How Can A Senator Vote With Trump Most Of The Time And Still Be A Moderate?

 

Quote

That question is surprisingly difficult to answer, as it really depends on what senatorial behavior is being examined. That is, someone like Gardner can both vote with President Trump on nearly all major issues and still be one of the three most bipartisan members of the Senate. The same is true of Collins. At the risk of getting a little bit wonky, I want to dig into three of the most commonly used metrics for measuring a senator’s ideology to show you how each of them can be spun.

...

For starters, the president is not a member of the Senate. So one limitation of this metric is that it can’t determine whether a senator agrees with the president unless the president announces his preferences on a bill. And that’s a fairly big caveat, because more often than not, presidents don’t publicly state an opinion on individual bills.1 What’s more, the bills the White House does weigh in on aren’t a random sample of all bills that reach the Senate floor. Typically, the president supports bills that are a priority for him or for his party — in other words, they’re usually bills his party largely agrees on. And bills the president doesn’t like often don’t reach the Senate floor for a vote anyway, since Republicans control the chamber.

masket-MODERATE-GOP-0716-1.png?w=575

 

Quote

For instance, if we compare Republican senators’ Trump scores to their DW-Nominate scores, we find that nearly all Republicans back Trump’s agenda to some extent, so there isn’t much difference between the two scores for most GOP senators. However, DW-Nominate shows us that there are two types of Republicans who buck the mainstream of the party: relative moderates like Collins and libertarian conservatives like Paul.

 

But this still doesn’t tell us very much about senators’ claims to bipartisanship, or how someone like Gardner — who is a mainstream conservative according to both his Trump score and his DW-Nominate score — can be called one of the chamber’s most bipartisan senators. This is where our third metric for understanding senators’ behavior comes in: The Bipartisan Index

 

Quote

But how much does this metric really speak to Gardner’s or Collins’s bipartisan track record? Many of these co-sponsorships are largely symbolic: Most Democrat-authored bills are not going anywhere in the Republican-controlled Senate right now, and Gardner and Collins know that. So senators risk very little by attaching their names to such measures, and they get to claim bipartisan records regardless of their actual voting behavior. In the case of Gardner and Collins, they probably hope these gestures across the aisle will help them in their reelection battles.

 

To be clear, though, when senators like Collins or Gardner say they have a strong record of being moderate or bipartisan while critics say they still usually vote with Trump, neither group is wrong. They’re just examining different aspects of lawmakers’ behavior. 

 

Emphasis mine on the last part. It's something I've noticed for a long time, and I don't think it's news to, like, half of you. The only bipartisan thing I remember Collins being in the front lines was Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Massdriver

Massdriver

Posted
Posted
On 7/17/2020 at 6:30 PM, SaysWho? said:

 

The posts were deleted. Everyman and Engel were trying to recreate Stormfront. Everyman said, "Freeing the slaves was one of the biggest mistakes the white man made." And then Engel said that. And then Everyman was such a wuss that when I called him out on it, he went "herp derp no I never said that!" Because racists are wussies. 

 

Fuck both of those losers. 

I've been posting here with you since the IGN days, and I never got the impression that Engel was a racist. Everyman, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

I've been posting here with you since the IGN days, and I never got the impression that Engel was a racist. Everyman, yes.

 

His words, not mine. He's a racist.

 

I got that impression a lot and took note of the ding dongs who were desperate for a "good" conservative poster and convinced themselves it was him. He liked Everyman quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe

Joe

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

His words, not mine. He's a racist.

 

I got that impression a lot and took note of the ding dongs who were desperate for a "good" conservative poster and convinced themselves it was him. He liked Everyman quite a bit.

 

I mean he could be a racist piece of garbage and still be a good conservative poster relative to the conservative posters we have had on here over the years lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted

538 just did a really great piece: The Senate Has Always Favored Smaller States. It Just Didn’t Help Republicans Until Now.

 

Key phrase for me:

 

Quote

The Cook Political Report recently said Democrats are favored to win the Senate, but considering Democrats currently lead the generic ballot for Congress by over 8 percentage points and have a similar margin nationally in the presidential race, it’s remarkable that they still are only slight favorites to control the upper chamber.

 

Over the past few decades, Republicans benefited from the number of small states after roughly being equal in terms of number of Senators and number of people they represent.

 

drutman-SENATE-BIAS-0729-1.png?w=575

 

drutman-SENATE-BIAS-0729-2.png?w=575

 

Quote

Even if D.C. or Puerto Rico were states (as some on the left advocate), Republicans would still have the advantage. It’s true that the statehoods of D.C. and Puerto Rico would help Democrats close the small-state gap, but even if both were states and elected two Democratic senators, Republicans would still have had a two-seat majority in 2019, while only representing 48 percent of the population.

 

And the history as to why there are so many small states for no reason and why opposition to D.C. and Puerto Rico only makes sense if you're a partisan hack (it's true).

 

Quote

The Senate has always held a contested place in America’s democratic system because of its non-proportional qualities. For the first half of the 19th century, the Senate was a bulwark for the South, with an equal balance of slave and free states despite the growing Northern population advantage. And in the second half of the 19th century, Republicans attempted to “stack” the Senate by admitting a large number of Republican states into the union, starting with Nevada in 1864 (population of just 6,857(!) in the 1860 census), Nebraska (1867), Colorado (1876), Montana, Washington, and North and South Dakota as separate states in an 1889 omnibus, and Idaho and Wyoming in 1890.

 

But despite rising prairie populism spreading through the Great Plains to the Mountain West in the 1890s, Republicans’ hopes for a stacked Senate didn’t work out quite as planned. And thanks to the way the American two-party system developed in the 20th century, with Democrats and Republicans both containing urban liberal and rural conservative wings, the small-state bias of the Senate never became a real partisan issue — until now. It will likely remain an issue, too, as long as one party is able to win a majority in the chamber while only representing a minority of the population.

 

Some of this eventually helped Democrats (Washington, Nevada, and potentially Colorado if they can finally kick Gardner out). But North and South Dakota being two separate states is probably the big kicker in all this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...