Renegade7 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 11 minutes ago, Larry said: Believe it when it happens. That's fair, it's one poll and its early. But this easily as vulnerable as some of these GOP senators have ever been. This is the time to pour as much resources into taking back the senate as legally possible and not apologizing for it. The ads write themselves at this point, now make sure folks see them. A lot of folks home watching TV right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted March 30, 2020 Author Share Posted March 30, 2020 The initial SMP reservations include $5.2 million in Colorado, $9.6 million in Maine,$13.1 million in Iowa, $15.7 million in Arizona and $25.6 million in North Carolina. Except for Colorado, where SLF has reserved $5.5 million, the Democratic group’s reservations are slightly larger than the GOP group’s in each of those states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 Glad to see the left is sticking to their beliefs about trying to buy elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 27 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Glad to see the left is sticking to their beliefs about trying to buy elections. Given the choice, I hope Democrats are someday able to reform the money in politics. Until that time, I have zero problems with doing this given the ****ing **** show the GOP has become. However, the truth is that unless there are good candidates running, the money won't mean much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Hersh said: Given the choice, I hope Democrats are someday able to reform the money in politics. Until that time, I have zero problems with doing this given the ****ing **** show the GOP has become. However, the truth is that unless there are good candidates running, the money won't mean much. I agree. But that's why I didn't understand all the hate towards Bloomberg. At least you knew who was funding his operation. Seemed like hypocrisy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I agree. But that's why I didn't understand all the hate towards Bloomberg. At least you knew who was funding his operation. Seemed like hypocrisy to me. It's not hypocrisy to play by the rules of the game as they currently exist and want to change those rules as soon as you are able. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 56 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Glad to see the left is sticking to their beliefs about trying to buy elections. "We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. " Dems should be able to dollar for dollar match the misinformation coming from Trumps campaign that exacerbating this pandemic to at minimum try to save lives. How much money is that worth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 59 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I agree. But that's why I didn't understand all the hate towards Bloomberg. At least you knew who was funding his operation. Seemed like hypocrisy to me. The Bernie Bro’s and others on the left occasionally go totally brain dead and don’t realize that being in power is far more important than purity. Ill be kind and leave it at that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 Another really irritating quality of BernieBro’s is the insistence that “Biden would lose to Biden” and also that “we will not vote for Biden”. Ok fine, it’s quite possible that Biden loses and part of the reason is that a lot of left wing voters didn’t vote for him. But the assumption that “Bernie would defeat Trump” also rests on the fact that almost all center-left voters vote for Bernie. And they probably will. And the Bernie Brothers know that. So there argument essentially boils down to “we won’t compromise with you, but we know you will with us so let us win”. And any political coalition that starts with one side behaving like this is doomed to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Hersh said: being in power is far more important than purity. Pointing out that the above statement sounds familiar to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said: It's not hypocrisy to play by the rules of the game as they currently exist and want to change those rules as soon as you are able. I disagree. Especially when you specifically target another candidate for doing something that you end up doing. I'll take a person financing their own campaign over someone using a super-pac any day. I agree money and politics needs a total overhaul. But Bloomberg was playing within the rules. Attack the rules, not him. Or stick to what you say and don't accept super-pac money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I disagree. Especially when you specifically target another candidate for doing something that you end up doing. I'll take a person financing their own campaign over someone using a super-pac any day. I agree money and politics needs a total overhaul. But Bloomberg was playing within the rules. Attack the rules, not him. Or stick to what you say and don't accept super-pac money. There is a certain insidiousness to someone using their own money by the bucket full and an associated suspicion of motives. At least with superpac money we have an idea of who they'll be answering to and what they want. The answer, which we will hopefully work towards is providing all candidates with the same amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 25 minutes ago, Larry said: Pointing out that the above statement sounds familiar to me. I could have expanded to make it sound less evil. Some people think that 75% of what they want isn't good enough so they would rather lose cause they are dumb ****s. Also, I expect Dems to act within the law to win. But hey, throw a both sides at me again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I disagree. Especially when you specifically target another candidate for doing something that you end up doing. I'll take a person financing their own campaign over someone using a super-pac any day. I agree money and politics needs a total overhaul. But Bloomberg was playing within the rules. Attack the rules, not him. Or stick to what you say and don't accept super-pac money. Dems would be kept out of power nearly completely if they held completely to their values they claim while Republicans don't hold to any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, KAOSkins said: There is a certain insidiousness to someone using their own money by the bucket full and an associated suspicion of motives. At least with superpac money we have an idea of who they'll be answering to and what they want. The answer, which we will hopefully work towards is providing all candidates with the same amount. 100% disagree with the idea that a superpac is better than an individual financing their own campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, Hersh said: 100% disagree with the idea that a superpac is better than an individual financing their own campaign. Not better, just different. When only multi-billionaires can afford to run we have an extremely limited pool from which to choose (and mostly people with enormous, warped egos). Under the current paradigm I think it's a valid argument. And, I'd add, that's in part why he failed to pick up any steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I disagree. Especially when you specifically target another candidate for doing something that you end up doing. I'll take a person financing their own campaign over someone using a super-pac any day. I agree money and politics needs a total overhaul. But Bloomberg was playing within the rules. Attack the rules, not him. Or stick to what you say and don't accept super-pac money. I don't really recall seeing a ton of Bloomberg hate, I thought what he did was fine, and the outcome was what it should have been. He entered the race, spent a bajillion dollars on ads talking about himself and attacking Trump (not attacking other Democrats) and then when it was clear he wasn't getting anywhere, he dropped out and promised to support the nominee. Of course his actual opponents attacked him, that's how campaigns and debates work. I don't recall anyone saying what he was doing was illegal, they just said he's a billionaire trying to buy the race, which is true and fair game. Here is my actual post that you disagree with, in its entirety: "It's not hypocrisy to play by the rules of the game as they currently exist and want to change those rules as soon as you are able." So if you disagree with what I actually wrote, that means you believe that different rules should apply to Democrats and Republicans simply because Democrats want different rules? Is that correct? 5 minutes ago, Hersh said: 100% disagree with the idea that a superpac is better than an individual financing their own campaign. It's just cutting out the middle man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, KAOSkins said: Not better, just different. When only multi-billionaires can afford to run we have an extremely limited pool from which to choose (and mostly people with enormous, warped egos). Under the current paradigm I think it's a valid argument. First, Bloomberg's money for his own campaign didn't do much at all. Now think about the Koch brother or Shelden Anderson or any amoral POS and the money they poor into superpacs. Bloomberg put how his agenda. Superpacs put out bull**** statements about being patriotic when they couldn't care less. I knew where Bloomberg stood. I don't know the motives of all superpacs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: So if you disagree with what I actually wrote, that means you believe that different rules should apply to Democrats and Republicans simply because Democrats want different rules? Is that correct? So what is the difference between using your own money vs super pac money to "try to buy an election"? I think if you are going to use big money, then you shouldn't be attacking others for doing so. You are welcome to talk about how campaign finance needs reform without going after other candidates for using big money. But you shouldn't be going after a candidate for using his billions while using money from other billionaires. You don't see any hypocrasy in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 14 minutes ago, Hersh said: First, Bloomberg's money for his own campaign didn't do much at all. Now think about the Koch brother or Shelden Anderson or any amoral POS and the money they poor into superpacs. Bloomberg put how his agenda. Superpacs put out bull**** statements about being patriotic when they couldn't care less. I knew where Bloomberg stood. I don't know the motives of all superpacs. I think the motives of the right wing superpacs, ****ty as they are, are pretty clear. Keep labor cheap, keep the cheaply employed content with their lot by giving them someone to hate (blame) other than the real culprits, lower taxes and funnel money to their brethren through defense (and other government) contracts. Oh, and can't forget undoing all those nasty profit reducing regulations. They're are others, but that's the gist of it I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 27 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: So what is the difference between using your own money vs super pac money to "try to buy an election"? I think if you are going to use big money, then you shouldn't be attacking others for doing so. You are welcome to talk about how campaign finance needs reform without going after other candidates for using big money. But you shouldn't be going after a candidate for using his billions while using money from other billionaires. You don't see any hypocrasy in that? There is very little difference. The candidates that willingly used super pac money got attacked for it all the time. Mayor Pete got attacked because he held a fundraiser in a wine cave. It's all fair game. The only reason some candidates refused to willingly accept PAC money was so that they could attack others for doing so. You are arguing that a person should not be able to accept money from a superpac and also criticize someone else for using their own billions. I don't disagree with that, although it fails to consider the fundamental structure of a superpac, which is that a candidate cannot control it. So a superpac can (and did) do things to support Liz Warren, and she can't really stop it. Our Revolution operates as a superpac for Bernie, but it is separate from his campaign and he claims to not take outside money. This issue is also entirely separate from what I actually wrote: It is not hypocritical to exploit the current rules to your advantage and also believe that the rules are bad and should be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted April 1, 2020 Author Share Posted April 1, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted April 2, 2020 Author Share Posted April 2, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 How will the coronavirus pandemic impact elections for the other offices? I am only asking about how normal people might vote. We already know Trumpsters and hard core Bernie Bros. are lost. Trump isn't the only one running for reelection. What's the impact on the Senators like Graham and Mcconnell? Will it impact the congressional races? They are some governors like WV Jim Justice running for reelection, will it impact them? Could the balance of power in the house and senate; shift because of the response to the virus? Also, this will impact races for the next 3 years because alot people aren't up for reelection until 21,22 & 23. Especially, governors. Alot of governors were elected in 2018, so they aren't up for reelection until 2022. Will it still impact them or will have enough time passed by then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted April 7, 2020 Author Share Posted April 7, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.