Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Election 2024 & Presidential Cage Match: Dark Brandon 46 vs Felonious Farty 45


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I get where you goin with this, but most people believe the GOP primary race was over before it started.  It's a waste of resources to try to change that via "news coverage".

 

The level of effort to make that seem otherwise would be way more obvious then what they currently doing with the inevitable rematch between Trump and Biden.  That's for all the marbles and polls are saying it's close when FFS it really shouldn't be.

 

At some point during a blowout in a football game the charade is over and its garbage time for the announcers.  Otherwise it's so annoyingly forced it can't be taken seriously.

 

So the belief is that Trump was always easily going to win the GOP primary no matter what the press would do (even before Desantis' free fall in the polls) but the national election wouldn't be close if the news organizations weren't secretly propping Trump up?

 

So all those Republican voters that voted for Trump in the primary made it a for sure thing for Trump and blow out for Trump no matter what the press did would leave Trump in the GE if only the news reportedly honest?

 

The country is split pretty evenly between the GOP and Democrat registered voters. Even when you take into independents and ask which they lean, the split is pretty even 43% GOP and 46% Democrat).

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 

When was the last time an incumbent President ran against somebody that swept the other parties primaries and the election wasn't close?  Because that's what the logic requires.  The press can't do anything about somebody not just winning but dominating the GOP nomination process, but then can somehow get a lot of those people that voted for that person that dominated the GOP process to abandon them in the GE.

 

That doesn't seem very logical to me.

 

(And then from there, what the press is mostly doing is reporting on the horse race nature of the process.  Why is the election close?  And I think they can be criticized for that instead of drilling down into who would actually be a better President and the consequences of the election (though I think that they are doing some of that,

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/politics/kash-patel-trump-administration/index.html

 

but I'd like to see more.)  But realistically, what seems to get clicks is the horse race nature of the process because that's what we get in news stories.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

So the belief is that Trump was always easily going to win the GOP primary no matter what the press would do (even before Desantis' free fall in the polls) but the national election wouldn't be close if the news organizations weren't secretly propping Trump up?

 

So all those Republican voters that voted for Trump in the primary made it a for sure thing for Trump and blow out for Trump no matter what the press did would leave Trump in the GE if only the news reportedly honest?

 

The country is split pretty evenly between the GOP and Democrat registered voters. Even when you take into independents and ask which they lean, the split is pretty even 43% GOP and 46% Democrat).

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 

When was the last time an incumbent President ran against a somebody that sweep the other parties primaries and the election wasn't close?  Because that's what the logic requires.  The press can't do anything about somebody not just winning but dominating the GOP nomination process, but then can somehow get a lot of those people that voted for that person that dominated the GOP process to abandon them in the GE.

 

That doesn't seem very logical to me.

 

(And then from there, what the press is mostly doing is reporting on the horse race nature of the process.  Why is the election close?  And I think they can be criticized for that instead of drilling down into who would actually be a better President and the consequences of the election (though I think that they are doing some of that,

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/politics/kash-patel-trump-administration/index.html

 

but I'd like to see more.)  But realistically, what seems to get clicks is the horse race nature of the process because that's what we get in news stories.)

 

The propaganda campaign that enabled Trump to this point took a lot more then jus Cable News, and would take a lot more then jus that to fully counter it...

 

Winning a primary is not the same as winning a general election...they can't hide what's going on with Trump attacking like a rabid squirrel in November. 

 

And that's if he's not indicted by then, which we've never been through during a presidential primary leading into a general election (so this is an evolving situation that could rapidly change between here and now). 

 

That's an enormous risk for the GOP hitching their wagon to someone who may be on the ballot from jail later this year, but it's rarely if ever presented that way.  We really are in uncharted territory right now as a country, we've never taken our obvious bias or attempts at being unbiased this far before, let alone in face of the circumstances at hand.

 

And DeSantis ran a trash ass campaign against a cult leader, come at the king, best not miss.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

I think he was talking to Mercedes Schlapp who's gay husband who tried to touch one of Hershel Walkers employees a few years ago, is part of running CPAC. It's just weird because she's probably not even visible to the crowd and maybe not him.

Goddamit, don’t you dare try to cover up for his memory lapses! Who’s side are you on!?!??

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

One good thing from tonight, a lot of Jets fans are upset that Woody Johnson and his trollop were on stage with Trump this evening.  I feel like that easily could have been Dan Snyder at one point.

 

For once we can point and laugh at another team's owner and not have to worry about ours.

Well, Woody was an ambassador during his term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Yeah. He’s a ****ing pinecone. 

Woody better hope Aaron can play this year. He also needs a backup qb. I suggest Sam Howell. Actually, would be perfect for Sam. Watch under Aaron and then maybe get another shot after Aaron retires.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump agrees with Putin that Biden should be president

 

Donald Trump appeared to say that Joe Biden should be president during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2024.

 

Mr Trump repeated claims that he had a good personal relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, saying they “got along well” during his term as president.

 

“He did announce the other day that he’d much rather see Biden as president, and I agree with him” said Trump.

 

Click on the link for the rest

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

The propaganda campaign that enabled Trump to this point took a lot more then jus Cable News, and would take a lot more then jus that to fully counter it...

 

Winning a primary is not the same as winning a general election...they can't hide what's going on with Trump attacking like a rabid squirrel in November. 

 

So we've now moved the goal post from the problem being this election cycle to 2016?

 

He's not just winning the primary.  Unless something shocking is going to happen he's going to easily sweep his party's nomination process.  You're right there is nothing the press could do that wouldn't to keep him from easily winning the GOP nomination.  Looking back to 1980, that hasn't happened for a nonincumbent President.  That the primary GOP voters are going to show up and give him a sweep of the nomination process and then abandon him at the GE no matter what the press does just isn't credible.  They don't care if he gets indicted (as indicated by the fact that many of them are voting for him anyway and by the polls that say they don't care).  They understand the risks and don't care.

 

That makes a close general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

So we've now moved the goal post from the problem being this election cycle to 2016?

 

He's not just winning the primary.  Unless something shocking is going to happen he's going to easily sweep his party's nomination process.  You're right there is nothing the press could do that wouldn't to keep him from easily winning the GOP nomination.  Looking back to 1980, that hasn't happened for a nonincumbent President.  That the primary GOP voters are going to show up and give him a sweep of the nomination process and then abandon him at the GE no matter what the press does just isn't credible.  They don't care if he gets indicted (as indicated by the fact that many of them are voting for him anyway and by the polls that say they don't care).  They understand the risks and don't care.

 

That makes a close general election.

If 60% of Republicans are Only-Trumpers, and 40% are Never-Trumpers, then Trump would sweep the Primary and then have real difficulty in General.

Sweeping the primary only means one has a significant plurality of their own Party's support, but if a significant portion of said party recognizes one as a clear and present danger to the country, that doesn't translate to getting the full support of the party come general election.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

If 60% of Republicans are Only-Trumpers, and 40% are Never-Trumpers, then Trump would sweep the Primary and then have real difficulty in General.

Sweeping the primary only means one has a significant plurality of their own Party's support, but if a significant portion of said party recognizes one as a clear and present danger to the country, that doesn't translate to getting the full support of the party come general election.

 

I'd go further. 

 

Sweeping the primaries means Trump got 60% ot the vote of -the kinds of people who vote in Republican primaries. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Trump is effectively an incumbent, and only winning 60% is SC seems awfully low. 

 

In the context of normal political actions, Trump isn't effectively an incumbent.  Trump is doing something nobody else has done in anybody that is livings life time.  If being a one term President that lost made you essentially an incumbent, then one term President's coming back the next election and sweeping their party's primaries would be common.

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

If 60% of Republicans are Only-Trumpers, and 40% are Never-Trumpers, then Trump would sweep the Primary and then have real difficulty in General.

Sweeping the primary only means one has a significant plurality of their own Party's support, but if a significant portion of said party recognizes one as a clear and present danger to the country, that doesn't translate to getting the full support of the party come general election.

 

If 40% were never Trumpers, you'd have a point.  But that's not the case.  And that's never the case in a primary.  The people that vote for somebody else in the primary are never I'm not going to vote for the other person.  Party labels matter.  Never Trumpers have had 8 years to leave/reject the GOP.  There's no reason to believe that people that a large percentage of the people that are registered GOP or report leaning GOP are never Trumpers.  The SC primary was an open primary.  There is no real reason to believe that 40% of Republican voters won't vote for Trump.

 

There's every reason to believe that the vast majority of them will end up voting for the person who their party nominates and is broadly supported by their party.  And the election will be close.  And for the press to report on the election as if it is going to be close.

 

And the 40% number is going to end up being wrong.  That's 40% in her home state where she was governor and NH where independents can vote.  Nationally over the course of the primaries, it is going to be much lower unless something big happens.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Trump isn't effectively an incumbent.  Trump is doing something nobody else has done in anybody that is livings life time.  If being a one term President that lost made you essentially an incumbent, then one term President's coming back the next election and sweeping their party's primaries would be common.

 

Common?  One term presidents aren't very common.  And of those, how many actually run again? Which is why, as you say, Trump is doing something nobody has done before.  That doesn't mean he isn't effectively running as an incumbent.  Perhaps if Bush 1 had tried again he would have swept the GOP primary.  We don't know because usually one term presidents don't try again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, China said:

 

Common?  One term presidents aren't very common.  And of those, how many actually run again? Which is why, as you say, Trump is doing something nobody has done before.  That doesn't mean he isn't effectively running as an incumbent.  Perhaps if Bush 1 had tried again he would have swept the GOP primary.  We don't know because usually one term presidents don't try again.

 

There have been several one term Presidents in my life time.  One term President's don't run again because they don't have the support of their party to win.

 

Bush 1 wasn't going to win another GOP primary which is why he didn't run.

 

But it doesn't really matter.  If he's doing something that hasn't been one in anybody's life time treating him as if he is something that is common doesn't make any sense. At this time, he's a historical abnormality.  Incumbents winning sweeping their primary is common.  That's inarguable.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, China said:

Trump agrees with Putin that Biden should be president

 

Donald Trump appeared to say that Joe Biden should be president during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2024.

 

Mr Trump repeated claims that he had a good personal relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, saying they “got along well” during his term as president.

 

“He did announce the other day that he’d much rather see Biden as president, and I agree with him” said Trump.

 

Click on the link for the rest

 

 

  • Haha 3
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
×
×
  • Create New...