Boatdrinks Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, GG said: You didn't read what I wrote? The message should be for the non-haters and non-lovers. He can easily win over an additional 40% of the population just by not being a childish dunce. 40% ? That seems a bit high. Most will decide on major policy stances, not on a whim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, westside2 said: Maybe I misread you. I just think the country is so divided I don't think the percentage of non decided is anywhere close to 40%. Just now, Boatdrinks said: 40% ? That seems a bit high. Most will decide on major policy stances, not on a whim. Although the elections are usually close, the rough math of each side is that there are 30% that are firmly planted along partisan lines, leaving 40% for grabs. That's why it's not unusual to see 60-40 election results for very popular candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, westside2 said: Maybe I misread you. I just think the country is so divided I don't think the percentage of non decided is anywhere close to 40%. Agreed. Maybe closer to 10-15%. 1 minute ago, GG said: Although the elections are usually close, the rough math of each side is that there are 30% that are firmly planted along partisan lines, leaving 40% for grabs. That's why it's not unusual to see 60-40 election results for very popular candidates. In the past , I could see that.Candidates weren’t so far apart. Just such a huge difference in vision for America right now, though. One side is anti American , anti capitalism, and anti Caucasian. Can’t recall anything quite like the stark differences in the parties now. Old metrics may not apply. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 12 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: Agreed. Maybe closer to 10-15%. In the past , I could see that.Candidates weren’t so far apart. Just such a huge difference in vision for America right now, though. One side is anti American , anti capitalism, and anti Caucasian. Can’t recall anything quite like the stark differences in the parties now. Old metrics may not apply. Looking the candidate slate, Trump could easily get 60% of the vote if he wasn't a stubborn petulant child. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, GG said: Looking the candidate slate, Trump could easily get 60% of the vote if he wasn't a stubborn petulant child. I don’t believe 60% is attainable anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 11 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: I don’t believe 60% is attainable anymore You very well may be right. But even if you have a persuadable group of 10-15% of the voting public, that is a substantial number. Between, PA, MI and WI Trump won those states with less than 100k votes between them all. All it takes is a percentage point or two to make the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Magox said: You very well may be right. But even if you have a persuadable group of 10-15% of the voting public, that is a substantial number. Between, PA, MI and WI Trump won those states with less than 100k votes between them all. All it takes is a percentage point or two to make the difference. It’s certainly substantial. It appears his team believes his personality is a strong part of his appeal with the base. They may believe the stark contrast in policy between candidates will win the day on the undecided. We will see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Good thing hardly anyone watches them anyway. . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 12 minutes ago, B-Man said: Good thing hardly anyone watches them anyway. . Especially when you consider how empty the airports are 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 The CNN journalist was worried his station might be flirting with racism since they have reported on the coronavirus scandal even though China would like everyone just to pretend everything is fine. They had even referred to it as the Wuhan virus before China told them to stop. Acosta knew drastic steps had to be taken to show how not-racist he was and prove that CNN was a bastion of love, tolerance, and globalism. So, live on the air this morning, he began solemnly stuffing live bats into his mouth one at a time. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 Posted in another thread, but belongs here.... "Fooling thousands of readers in a prank that the cable news organization said was "just for fun," CNN published a real news story for April Fools' Day this year. The story simply contained a list of facts, with no embellishment, editorializing, or invented details. The story also didn't cite shaky "anonymous sources" and only quoted firsthand witnesses to the event. It was completely factual without any errors whatsoever." "Baffled CNN fans immediately knew something was up." 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 . 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 It Took 27 Days For CNN To Say What They Previously Accused Trump Of Lying About Watching the media response to President Trump’s handling of the pandemic has been an educational experience for anyone who has been paying attention. It seems no matter what actions the President takes or what comments and opinions he offers, somebody at the major cable networks and newspapers is standing by to jump all over him. Unfortunately, on several notable occasions, Trump has turned out to be right. And then comes the embarrassing moment when the media talking heads have to reluctantly deliver the same news. One key example of this phenomenon popped up a few weeks ago when the President offered an opinion about the mortality rate for the novel coronavirus. At that time, Dr. Anthony Fauci was estimating it to be “around two percent.” Some other medical authorities had put the figure as high as 2.6%. Trump declared that he thought it was going to be considerably lower, “way lower than one percent,” specifying that this was just “a hunch” that he had. That was all it took. The press was all over him. He was “misleading” the nation. He was “contradicting the medical community.” Trump was “at odds with what health experts are saying.” But yesterday, CNN found themselves describing the mortality rate for the virus in new terms. Oops. How many people die after being infected with the novel coronavirus? Fewer than previously calculated, according to a study released Monday, but still more than die from the flu. The research, published in the medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases, estimated that about 0.66% of those infected with the virus will die. That coronavirus death rate, which is lower than earlier estimates, takes into account potentially milder cases that often go undiagnosed — but it’s still far higher than the 0.1% of people who are killed by the flu. So that’s at least one bright spot of good news amidst an otherwise grim forecast for the virus. The linked report is a rather lengthy article with plenty of good information in it, including quotes from multiple medical authorities. It also includes a brief reference to the fact that the projected death rate is “lower than earlier estimates.” But do you know who isn’t quoted in that article? President Donald J. Trump. In fact, his name is never even mentioned. And, of course, there is no reference whatsoever to the CNN personalities who were excoriating the President when his “hunch” told him that it would wind up being “considerably lower” than the previous estimates and “way lower than one percent. 0.66% sure sounds “considerably lower” than 2.6% to me. In fact, it’s basically just a quarter of the old estimate. And it’s barely more than half of one percent. More at the link: https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/04/01/took-27-days-cnn-say-previously-accused-trump-lying/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 21 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: James Woods and Adam Baldwin should team up for a podcast 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 46 minutes ago, /dev/null said: James Woods and Adam Baldwin should team up for a podcast That would be gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 Sides chosen............ CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Gloria Borger call it ‘spin’ when Mike Pence blames China for withholding vital coronavirus information . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 2, 2020 Share Posted April 2, 2020 . 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts