Jump to content

Occasi-Cortez Channeling the Rent's too damn high guy


bdutton

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Buftex said:

Well...Hillary did get 3 million more votes than Lumpy.  I meant among voters, in 2020.  Bill Clinton became a bit toxic in the party, especially with the Me Too movement...

Are you including the illegal votes in CA and elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  The 2020 Democratic Convention will be the litmus test for how much control the Clinton's have in that party.  It's not Hillary's style but sitting on the sidelines keeps her time on Fox News and space in the Washington Examiner to a minimum at present which is helpful with the Epstein matter.  She might have known several months ago that this was going to boil up and influenced her as to not making an early announcement as to running for POTUS, 

 

I'm still holding out hope that she jumps in. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

She got 80% of the vote is one way to look at it.

 

Another would be a guy with no media backing, no experience (that I know of) in government, and who only put 2k into his campaign got 20% of the vote in a deep blue district. That's staggering.

 

The results were practically identical to 2016. 

 

I just looked and pretty much every Congressional election in that district has been between 70-30 and 80-20 for the past 15 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I'm not deeply plugged into this story, but I thought Trump banned E from Mar-a-Lago?

 

Yeah, that is true- I think the bigger issue is that the D's didn't push the Clintons out of the sphere of the DNC they way they should have been after the Clinton Empire got exposed as a House of Cards. It seems like some kind of Bill scandal was a matter of time. 

 

Well, That's how you see it and I respect that- My perspective is that the scandals have mostly been fabricated- there are moral problems i have with him, but a lot of the big stuff is contrived. IMO. 

  The Dems could not push Hillary out earlier because she used her time as First Lady to accumulate intelligence on her Democratic opponents.  Dick Nixon was smiling up from the bowels of the Earth at that.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The results were practically identical to 2016. 

 

I just looked and pretty much every Congressional election in that district has been between 70-30 and 80-20 for the past 15 years. 

 

I hear you, but no one has tried to run a competitive race in that district from the right in decades -- in terms of money, media buys, and party support on the national level.

 

That won't be the case in 2020.

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The results were practically identical to 2016. 

 

I just looked and pretty much every Congressional election in that district has been between 70-30 and 80-20 for the past 15 years. 

 

The best thing for districts like that is candidates who tow the party line and don't make waves. Noisemakers draw attention from both sides which leads to way more investment and opportunity for whichever side is on the defensive (in this case, the RNC). Not to say she will lose, but it's more open than it once was- It's also going to be interesting to see how much support she has from Nancy and the DNC by then. 

 

 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No one has tried to run a competitive race in that district from the right in decades -- in terms of money, media buys, and party support on the national level.

 

That won't be the case in 2020.

 

Well if they start now it's just cause they're racist. 

Edited by whatdrought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No one has tried to run a competitive race in that district from the right in decades -- in terms of money, media buys, and party support on the national level.

 

That won't be the case in 2020.

 

I'm sorry but the Republican party isn't going to dump money into a race in a district that they've lost 13 straight times by a huge margin.


There's no money because they have zero hope of winning. 

 

What you're saying doesn't make any sense here. They need about 120,000+ votes to win in a district that usually generate 15-30k GOP votes. The math just isn't there. 

Edited by jrober38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The results were practically identical to 2016. 

 

I just looked and pretty much every Congressional election in that district has been between 70-30 and 80-20 for the past 15 years. 

  And if we checked we would probably find that all the candidates previous to AOC were white and most were male for the GOP.  In a district that had been becoming very diverse socially for many decades.  The GOP will spend heavily on AOC's opponent as they no doubt can see she is a tool for the media which has to be unsettling.  The Jamaican immigrant is a heaven sent once in several generations opportunity that even the most bigoted GOP cigar chopper will not discard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

I'm sorry but the Republican party isn't going to dump money into a race in a district that they've lost 13 straight times by a huge margin.


There's no money because they have zero hope of winning. 

 

The RNC may not, but I'm sure there will be plenty of small donors out there (in and out of NY state) that can't stand AOC that will donate to the challenger's campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I'm sorry but the Republican party isn't going to dump money into a race in a district that they've lost 13 straight times by a huge margin.


There's no money because they have zero hope of winning. 

 

What you're saying doesn't make any sense here. They need about 150,000 votes to win in a district that usually generate 15-30k GOP votes. The math just isn't there. 

 

They absolutely will. And already are. 

 

Think she got on Fox by accident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

I'm sorry but the Republican party isn't going to dump money into a race in a district that they've lost 13 straight times by a huge margin.


There's no money because they have zero hope of winning. 

They might, in this particular case, because AOC has replaced HRC as the foundation for their parties bitterness... don't forget Roy Moore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  And if we checked we would probably find that all the candidates previous to AOC were white and most were male for the GOP.  In a district that had been becoming very diverse socially for many decades.  The GOP will spend heavily on AOC's opponent as they no doubt can see she is a tool for the media which has to be unsettling.  The Jamaican immigrant is a heaven sent once in several generations opportunity that even the most bigoted GOP cigar chopper will not discard.

 

Almost 50% of the district is Latino.

 

10% is African American.

 

The math doesn't add up. She's wildly unpopular on a national scale but she'll win again in a landslide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I'm sorry but the Republican party isn't going to dump money into a race in a district that they've lost 13 straight times by a huge margin.


There's no money because they have zero hope of winning. 

 

What you're saying doesn't make any sense here. They need about 120,000+ votes to win in a district that usually generate 15-30k GOP votes. The math just isn't there. 

 

I disagree. Parties throw money at races they won't win all the time. 

 

Example: DNC and Beto

Edited by whatdrought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buftex said:

They might, in this particular case, because AOC has replaced HRC as the foundation for their parties bitterness... don't forget Roy Moore.

 

Why on Earth would the Republican's want to get rid of her?

 

She's their best chess piece at winning reelection in 2020 and beyond because her social policies are so unpopular nationally. 

 

They don't want to defeat her. 

 

They want to make her the face of the Democrat Party for years to come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Why on Earth would the Republican's want to get rid of her?

 

She's their best chess piece at winning reelection in 2020 and beyond because her social policies are so unpopular nationally. 

 

They don't want to defeat her. 

 

They want to make her the face of the Democrat Party for years to come. 

 

She is valuable that way, but everything has a shelf life. If they can deal a big blow to the "youth movement" and have her bitching about Nancy and DNC on the way out, they'll take it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

(I know this is the AOC thread, but it's where most of this conversation has been held)

 

I will bet, within 3 days, he will give a nod and a wink to the idiots, and they will be chanting it his next rally!  He will get that stupid ***** eating, sweaty lipped look on his face and say something like "you people are awful, we gotta be nice....gotta be nice.  People tell me not to inflame...but I didn't start it...".  It will be met with waves of applause, and then the full on Trump riffs will start.... we have seen this over and over and over again...

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...