Real Obvi wrote:
OK, Sally, now we want the truth on this one . . .
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1343999462633570304Is that you?
Who would listen to this idiot in the first place? Who'd believe her?
Real Obvi wrote:
OK, Sally, now we want the truth on this one . . .
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1343999462633570304Is that you?
Who would listen to this idiot in the first place? Who'd believe her?
Trump tweets that Raffensperger's brother has ties to China.
Raffensperger does not have a brother.
“My God. Trying to burn the place down on the way out because you can’t handle losing. No evidence, nothing but your temper tantrum and crazy conspiracies. Embarrassing. #RestoreOurGOP. . .
“All this talk about Jan 6th from @realDonaldTrump and other congressional grifters is simply explained: they will raise money and gain followers by blaming everyone else knowing full well they can’t do anything. It’s sad, and an utter scam. #restoreourgop.” - GOP Congressman, Adam Kinzinger
I'm not a Bernie fan, but more of this please. Drive a wedge between the poor people redlandia and the GOP. Needs to be done for the good of the country and those people.
https://twitter.com/mmcauliff/status/1344379606288183299?s=20
latest 538 poll collections:
Ossoff +1.0
Warnock +1.9
Dies 538 still gave Biden ahead in Florida and North Carolina?
agip wrote:
latest 538 poll collections:
Ossoff +1.0
Warnock +1.9
I expect the uncertainty in polling is enormous, but it does look to be competitive. Looking at the pollsters with more than one survey, Trafalgar shows a shift in both the Dems favor in the most recent poll, and SurveyUSA shows a shift in Ossoff's favor with Warnock steady and ahead.
The only real conclusion is that polling suggests both races are competitive and essentially toss ups.
L L wrote:
[Does] 538 still gave Biden ahead in Florida and North Carolina?
Shoot, they've got him ahead in the whole *country*. Apparently he won the presidency or something.
agip wrote:
latest 538 poll collections:
Ossoff +1.0
Warnock +1.9
My personal prediction has been that Perdue and Warnock will win. (Though I think the smart bet would be that both GOPers will return.)
Come on, Perdue *looks* like a senator. Loeffler does not IMO. In fact lately her affect has just been a little strange.
Grumble, grumble, grumble wrote:
This is what I've been saying all along. I thought that surely there must be something I'm not getting about that provision of the law, but the last few days I've seen the fact that repealing it would hurt Trump and Qanon sorts more than anyone being brought up in news articles about it.
I liken it to him talking about making it easier to sue for libel. He would constantly be in court for the crap he spews. Even under current law I think more than a few people would have grounds to take him to court for what he's posted about them.
Either he is even dumber than we think or he believes he can score some huge points with the mouth breathers to start his 2024 run.
formerly present wrote:
agip wrote:
latest 538 poll collections:
Ossoff +1.0
Warnock +1.9
My personal prediction has been that Perdue and Warnock will win. (Though I think the smart bet would be that both GOPers will return.)
Come on, Perdue *looks* like a senator. Loeffler does not IMO. In fact lately her affect has just been a little strange.
The advantage is still heavily with the GOP due to the fact that trump continues to be a god to the base and he has continued to endorse the two senators. It won’t be a miracle if the Dems pull both wins but it will be perhaps one of the most important political achievements in recent history.
formerly present wrote:
agip wrote:
latest 538 poll collections:
Ossoff +1.0
Warnock +1.9
My personal prediction has been that Perdue and Warnock will win. (Though I think the smart bet would be that both GOPers will return.)
Come on, Perdue *looks* like a senator. Loeffler does not IMO. In fact lately her affect has just been a little strange.
I read somewhere that appointed senators like Loeffler have a poor record of being elected when they actually have to win elections.
Trollminator wrote:
formerly present wrote:
My personal prediction has been that Perdue and Warnock will win. (Though I think the smart bet would be that both GOPers will return.)
Come on, Perdue *looks* like a senator. Loeffler does not IMO. In fact lately her affect has just been a little strange.
The advantage is still heavily with the GOP due to the fact that trump continues to be a god to the base and he has continued to endorse the two senators. It won’t be a miracle if the Dems pull both wins but it will be perhaps one of the most important political achievements in recent history.
Kudos for an honest assessment. There is hope for you yet but ease up on the emoticons. 12-year-olds thrive on them but I think you might be 35.
agip wrote:
formerly present wrote:
My personal prediction has been that Perdue and Warnock will win. (Though I think the smart bet would be that both GOPers will return.)
Come on, Perdue *looks* like a senator. Loeffler does not IMO. In fact lately her affect has just been a little strange.
I read somewhere that appointed senators like Loeffler have a poor record of being elected when they actually have to win elections.
They have been 10-3 since 2001. McSally, Strange (primary), and Carnahan lost. Ten others chose not to seek reelection.
https://www.senate.gov/senators/AppointedSenators.htmlooking over the links I saved over the year...this is a good one. Mid March 2020. Many experts were predicting an entire year of quarantine and lockdowns and social distancing. Most people thought it would be just a few weeks.
Good call, these experts.
Heh.
The PRIMARY MODEL gives President Donald Trump a 91% chance of winning the 2020 presidential election, with Democrat Joe Biden having just a 9% chance. Trump would get 362 electoral votes, Biden 176. This forecast is unconditional and final; hence not subject to any updating. It was first posted March 2, 2020, on Twitter.
Prescient. Mid March 2020:
This writer points out that because we have so little hard data on covid, all decisions will be questionable and create pushback. That's for dern sure. Interesting to think about how dependent we all are on data, and how we assume we can get data on anything. The era of big data. But on this...we had very little and so it was a catastrophe. Have we lost our ability to think on the fly with incomplete information? What does that imply for the future?
///
The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.
At a time when everyone needs better information, from disease modelers and governments to people quarantined or just social distancing, we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected. Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact.
Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries. If the pandemic dissipates — either on its own or because of these measures — short-term extreme social distancing and lockdowns may be bearable. How long, though, should measures like these be continued if the pandemic churns across the globe unabated? How can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm?
3/23/2020
here a nobel laureate gets it wrong. He thought the virus would be over in a few weeks or months.
///
Michael Levitt, a Nobel laureate and Stanford biophysicist, began analyzing the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide in January and correctly calculated that China would get through the worst of its coronavirus outbreak long before many health experts had predicted.
Now he foresees a similar outcome in the United States and the rest of the world.
While many epidemiologists are warning of months, or even years, of massive social disruption and millions of deaths, Levitt says the data simply don’t support such a dire scenario — especially in areas where reasonable social distancing measures are in place.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate
March 12, 2020
An ex-obama health advisor calls this perfectly: Trump is the problem and his failures will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths.
https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1238303395448008704?s=20
9/2016
Here's the GOP establishment bowing to trump and saying 'you and only you can save us from communism. So we will vote for you, rather than HRC.
Idiots. Anyone who reads history knows that the right wing has been saying this same thing since oh 1932. Idiots.
Klobuchar Rips Hawley over Plan to Object to Electoral College Results: ‘Coup Attempt’
POLITICS & POLICY
Trump, Conservatives, and the ‘Principles’ Question
By DENNIS PRAGER
September 6, 2016 4:00 AM
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Flipboard
Email this article
Print this article
(Reuters photo: Carlo Allegi)
Never Trumpers need to admit that the Left and Hillary Clinton pose a threat to America's survival as the country it was founded to be.
All Never Trump conservatives maintain that their decision to never vote for Donald Trump is guided by their principles. I have no doubt that this is true.
But some of them — though by no means all — seem to imply, or at least may think, that conservatives who vote for Trump have abandoned their principles. Indeed, the charge of compromising on principle is explicitly leveled at Republican politicians and members of the Republican “establishment” who support Trump.
I cannot speak for all conservatives who are voting for Trump, but I can speak for many in making this assertion:
We have the same principles as the Never Trumpers — especially those of us who strongly opposed nominating Trump; that’s why we opposed him, after all. So almost everything that prevents Never Trumpers from voting for Trump also troubled us about the candidate. (I should note that some are less troubled today.)
So where do we differ?
We differ on this: We hold that defeating Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and the Left is also a principle. And that it is the greater principle.
Obviously, the Never Trumpers do not believe that. On the contrary, some of the most thoughtful Never Trumpers repeatedly tell us that the nation can survive four years of Hillary Clinton–Democrat rule. And then, they say, conservatism will have cleansed itself and be able to take back the nation after four calamitous years of a Hillary Clinton presidency — whereas if Trump wins, he will be the de facto face of conservatism, and then conservatism will have been dealt a potentially fatal setback.
This argument assumes that America can survive another four years of Democratic rule.
So, it really depends on what “survive” means. If it means that there will be a country called the United States of America after another four years of a Democratic presidency and a left-wing Supreme Court for quite possibly another four decades (as well as dozens of lifetime appointments to the equally important lower federal courts), the country will surely survive.
But I do not believe that the country will surely survive as the country it was founded to be. In that regard we are at the most perilous tipping point of American history.