Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Election 2022 (Dems in charge of Senate. Reps take the House. Herschel Walker headed back home to ignore his children )

Cooked Crack

By Cooked Crack
in The Tailgate

 Share

Have you voted yet?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Have you voted yet?

    • By mail
      10
    • Early voting
      15
    • Not yet
      0
    • can't vote/not voting
      1

Recommended Posts

Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted (edited)

tshile: "this is great news for republicans. It’s not great news for democrats. They prefer to believe it’s policies that won them the day, and don’t want to even toy with the idea that if non-****ty candidates were run they’d have lost more races.  "

 

Larry: "Thats kind of what I'm thinking, too."

 

 

No, Dems are fully aware the role that ****ty Republican candidates played in everything...they were counting on it:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries/

 

Democrats have spent nearly $19 million across eight states in primaries this year amplifying far-right Republican candidates who have questioned or denied the validity of the 2020 election, according to a Washington Post analysis, interfering in GOP contests to elevate rivals they see as easier to defeat in November, even as those candidates have promoted false or baseless claims.

 

The practice by some campaigns and outside groups this year has divided Democrats, with some in the party complaining that such tactics are risky and could ultimately result in the election of candidates who pose serious threats to democracy.

 

The approach often involves TV ads suggesting that a far-right GOP candidate is too conservative for a state or district and drawing attention to the candidate’s hard-line views on abortion, guns and former president Donald Trump — messages that resonate with conservative primary voters. In other cases, Democrats have run ads attacking GOP candidates seen as tougher to defeat in general elections in ways that could erode support for them in Republican primaries.

 

 

 

Edited by Califan007 The Constipated
  • Like 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Larry said:

And while it's entertaining, what I don't see is them deciding to change any of their policies. 

My assumption is they want to go back to 2000-2008 era republicans 

 

no I don’t expect anyone here to suddenly think they’re great or like them 

 

just not be 2016-2020, or the few years that proceeded it that created room for it to exist 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

No, Dems are fully aware the role that ****ty Republican candidates played in everything...they were counting on it:

I’m aware - we were discussing it while watching it and some people were laughing at some of the states they chose to do it in and waste money. 
 

the problem is here you’re conflating dems the official party with politicians and strategists and donors, with dems the voter. Which isn’t really you’re fault cause I’ve used them interchangeably. In the part you’re quoting I’m talking about the voters. 
 

i assume democrat strategists would be seeing the same thing as republicans strategists, and trying to figure out what to do about it themselves; and trying to figure out what the GOP’s next move is. 

It’s the voter opinion (and depending on the exact paragraph I may have used dems to refer to dem voters on this board specifically) I was referring to. 
 

I did at times try to use liberals to specify voters but I certainly wasn’t consistent with it. sorry about that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, tshile said:

I’m aware - we were discussing it while watching it and some people were laughing at some of the states they chose to do it in and waste money. 
 

the problem is here you’re conflating dems the official party with politicians and strategists and donors, with dems the voter. Which isn’t really you’re fault cause I’ve used them interchangeably. In the part you’re quoting I’m talking about the voters. 
 

i assume democrat strategists would be seeing the same thing as republicans strategists, and trying to figure out what to do about it themselves; and trying to figure out what the GOP’s next move is. 

It’s the voter opinion (and depending on the exact paragraph I may have used dems to refer to dem voters on this board specifically) I was referring to. 
 

I did at times try to use liberals to specify voters but I certainly wasn’t consistent with it. sorry about that. 

 

Yeah, the use of "they" made me think you meant the Dem party leaders not the Dem voters lol...I have no clue what Dem voters were/are thinking other than enjoying making fun of Republican pundits (amateur and professional) who predicted the red tsunami.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, tshile said:

My assumption is they want to go back to 2000-2008 era republicans


Just pointing out. I've been pointing out that aside from the constant, obvious, grift, there wasn't much difference between Trump and W. 
 

Well, maybe starting wars. 
 

The GOP hasn't changed their tune much since Reagan. At least not domestically. Even the notion of opposing doing anything about a lethal, contagious, disease by pushing the notion that it mostly kills Democrats. 
 

Yes, Reagan at least thought Russia was an enemy. 

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

If you don’t see a difference then we certaily won’t find much we agree on about it all. 
 

if your point is they’ll continue to move money away from the lower ends of the economy into the higher ends via policy, and still stick to the “religious belief” fueled part of their platform, I wasn’t really saying otherwise. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

At the abstract level you are asking "can you both have a hangover and still be drinking?"

 

I feel I speak from experience here.

 

Yes.

 

Its called "Monday".

 

9 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Who are you to lecture @PleaseBlitzabout drinking? 

 

Bow in the midst of greatness, sir.

 

Seriously.  This is just disrespect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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