IDBillzFan Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Buftex said: ...anybody who loves Trump is willing to look the other way on pretty much anything. True. And anybody who loves the Clintons was willing to ignore his 26 trips to Pedo Island. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: That can be a very affective TV ad! Not to mention if Trump debates, MY GOD, Kamala Harris will destroy him. Trump better hope he gets Sleepy Joe instead But in 2016 he promised the world and that drew in the marginal independent voters. I don't think he gets the fence sitters next time. Plus the Dem base should be way more fired up than when Hillary was running. (Her choose of a running mate was a huge mistake) Tim Kaine was the worst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 (I know this is the AOC thread, but it's where most of this conversation has been held) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Oh the Dems have a lot to go with on Epstein Trump thing. Why was the guy who gave him the sweet deal in Trump's cabinet? Why was he hanging with a guy who he knew liked very young girls? What about the sex parties just the two of them had? ^^^^ That can be a very affective TV ad! Not to mention if Trump debates, MY GOD, Kamala Harris will destroy him. Trump better hope he gets Sleepy Joe instead But in 2016 he promised the world and that drew in the marginal independent voters. I don't think he gets the fence sitters next time. Plus the Dem base should be way more fired up than when Hillary was running. (Her choose of a running mate was a huge mistake) If you think so. I disagree but I know you've been pounding that angle for the past two weeks, so keep it up. Also, not sure if Kamala is your choice, but she has some skeletons In her closet that aren't great- as far as sweet deals go, don't forget her connection to Kimm Foxx and the Smullet scandal. There's plenty of mud on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, IDBillzFan said: True. And anybody who loves the Clintons was willing to ignore his 26 trips to Pedo Island. I am not sure that Bill Clinton is the sacred cow you think he is, among the left...Hillary for that matter. At least not with voters... Edited July 18, 2019 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, Buftex said: I am not sure that Bill Clinton is the sacred cow you think he is, among the left...Hillary for that matter. At least not with voters... You could say that again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, Buftex said: I am not sure that Bill Clinton is the sacred cow you think he is, among the left...Hillary for that matter. There is no Hillary without Bill. And let me qualify that by also stating there IS a Michelle Obama without Barack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 13 minutes ago, Buftex said: There is apparently a highly qualified immigrant from Jamaica, a successful business woman, who will be running against her, as the GOP candidate... that will be the true litmus test. I know she has her quirks, but she really isn't as stupid as many here seem to feel she is. She is young....remember the learning curve we had to give Trump? AOC got almost 80% of the vote in the election. She's not going anywhere. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, whatdrought said: You could say that again. 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... long time Democrats may still hold them in esteem, but to the younger set, Bill is the dirty old man, and Hillary is the one who blew the easiest election ever. Edited July 18, 2019 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, 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... Not where it mattered. There are a lot of people that are going to vote for the blue either way, but the consensus going in was that it would be a landslide both vote wise and electoral wise. It was neither because the Clinton name isn't worth as much as the Dems. believed. That harkens back to my point about how I was surprised they didn't do away with them once and for all when they had that out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: AOC got almost 80% of the vote in the election. She's not going anywhere. The GOP contender is not an old white guy. She is probably more identifiable with the people of that district than AOC is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, RochesterRob said: The GOP contender is not an old white guy. She is probably more identifiable with the people of that district than AOC is. It's not happening. You don't win 80-20 and then lose 2 years later in a Congression District that has been all Democrat for 26 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, Buftex said: Tim Kaine was the worst! She chose someone of the other gender and with better character than her in order to balance the ticket. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Buftex said: Well...Hillary did get 3 million more votes than Lumpy. You write that like it means something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, whatdrought said: Not where it mattered. There are a lot of people that are going to vote for the blue either way, but the consensus going in was that it would be a landslide both vote wise and electoral wise. It was neither because the Clinton name isn't worth as much as the Dems. believed. That harkens back to my point about how I was surprised they didn't do away with them once and for all when they had that out. 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, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: It's not happening. You don't win 80-20 and then lose 2 years later in a Congression District that has been all Democrat for 26 years. It might be possible with the furor over the Amazon deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, jrober38 said: AOC got almost 80% of the vote in the election. She's not going anywhere. 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. Both the GOP and DNC noticed that. Both will be pouring money into the next campaign, especially if Pelosi decides to primary AOC. Either way, this lady will get a ton more financial support than AOC's previous oppenent. Can a republican win in that district? It's doubtful, but 2020 will be a much more difficult slog for AOC than 2016. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: It's not happening. You don't win 80-20 and then lose 2 years later in a Congression District that has been all Democrat for 26 years. Don't tell that to Martha Coakley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: True. And anybody who loves the Clintons was willing to ignore his 26 trips to Pedo Island. He’s in the logs (unverified) for pedoAir 26 times. I’ve not seen him tied to 26 trips to the island. Not that it matters. Someone will get to the bottom of it. Clinton has a pretty public schedule. It won’t be that hard to line up his travel with those logs. And if Epstein was running an underage sex ring for powerful men, which may be make-believe, it will be ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, whatdrought said: If you think so. I disagree but I know you've been pounding that angle for the past two weeks, so keep it up. Also, not sure if Kamala is your choice, but she has some skeletons In her closet that aren't great- as far as sweet deals go, don't forget her connection to Kimm Foxx and the Smullet scandal. There's plenty of mud on both sides. Kamala Harris sucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, IDBillzFan said: You write that like it means something. Not going down this rabbit hole... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, jrober38 said: It's not happening. You don't win 80-20 and then lose 2 years later in a Congression District that has been all Democrat for 26 years. https://www.opensecrets.org/races/candidates?cycle=2018&id=NY14&spec=N Her opponent spent the equivalent of a used Honda Civic on the election... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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 More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Are you including the illegal votes in CA and elsewhere? Beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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 More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) 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 July 18, 2019 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) 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 July 18, 2019 by whatdrought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) 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 July 18, 2019 by jrober38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Whatnot78 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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 More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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 More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) 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 July 18, 2019 by whatdrought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 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... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts