Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[thewhyteboar]

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

That would be funny to me because it would remind me of Gravel trying to be the Libertarian candidate in 2008, aka a guy who is clearly not a libertarian running on that ticket.

Remember Bob Barr?

[SaysWho?]

14 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

Remember Bob Barr?

 

Yup. He fits that mold as well. Still struck me as weird to see Gravel try. At least with Barr, he could say, "I HAVE SEEN THE SMALL GOVERNMENT LIGHT!"

[SaysWho?]

Why Running To Win Women Didn’t Work For Gillibrand

 

 

Quote

On paper, though, Gillibrand’s campaign didn’t seem especially quixotic. She was on the national stage for more than a decade before throwing her hat in the ring, and established herself as a strong advocate for women’s rights issues such as paid family leave and sexual assault in the military. She was also explicitly pitching her candidacy toward groups like white college-educated suburban women, whose political enthusiasm had just helped sweep a record-breaking number of women into office in the 2018 midterms.

 

Quote

For instance, when several states passed laws dramatically restricting abortion in May, Gillibrand seemed like she could have had a breakthrough moment. She even traveled to two of the states to hold rallies in support of abortion rights, and she called for a federal law that would stop state legislatures from passing limitations on abortion — but so did Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and even Cory Booker. In the second debate, Gillibrand tried again to seize the spotlight by taking Joe Biden to task for his position on a childcare tax credit in 1981 — but unlike Harris’s attack on Biden for his stance on school busing a month earlier, the moment didn’t really land.

 

In those moments and others, her rivals seemed to harness policies that were key to Gillibrand’s candidacy more effectively than she did. It was Harris, not Gillibrand, who grabbed headlines for her plan to penalize companies for failing to pay men and women equally. And in a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll, respondents said that Warren was best qualified to address gender equality, followed by Biden, Sanders and Harris — Gillibrand didn’t even crack the top 10.

 

Her Franken opposition also hurt her with donors:

 

Quote

Despite having been a formidable fundraiser in the past, she raised substantially less than others in the field. Moreover, unlike her fellow senators, who all drew the backing of political influencers from their home states, Gillibrand netted only one endorsement.

 

[Chris-]

Look in the mirror and say 'Franken' three times and Jason shows up with a reason.com article about finicky sexual harassment allegations.

 

[CitizenVectron]

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[thewhyteboar]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

53 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

 

Joe thinks he can work with these people

[RedSoxFan9]

unbiased 

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

unbiased 

 

I actually laughed out loud at the response being a copy of the email saying, "Your submitted paper has undergone peer review."

[Joe]

30 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I actually laughed out loud at the response being a copy of the email saying, "Your submitted paper has undergone peer review."

 

There's more to the email than just that statement. It was, gasp, shock!, selectively edited. Also, Rizzo emailed the publication and they said it did no go through the same peer review process as a research article.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jason]

 

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

 

So this story comes from this POLITICO report on the behind-the-scenes of the end of the campaign, and this part caught my attention:

 

Quote

Her first major policy roll-out, on clean elections, ran up against news of Mueller’s letter disagreeing with Barr’s assessment of his report. And on the July debate stage, Gillibrand took on Joe Biden over previous comments on women working outside the home — but she previewed her attack line the preceding weekend, and Biden was ready for it, accusing Gillibrand of opportunism.

 

I remember that as an attempt to generate headlines as Harris did, and I had no idea she had previewed that line. When you watch the exchange again, she could not land that criticism at all:

 

 

[Joe]

36 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

So this story comes from this POLITICO report on the behind-the-scenes of the end of the campaign, and this part caught my attention:

 

 

I remember that as an attempt to generate headlines as Harris did, and I had no idea she had previewed that line. When you watch the exchange again, she could not land that criticism at all:

 

 

 

She even gives the crowd a stern look for a second as they were cheering Biden's comeback. If she ever wants to run for POTUS again, she needs to be way better.

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Anathema-]

Fact checkers are the real liberal tea party.

[SaysWho?]

The Washington Post report — based on interviews with more than a dozen troops, commanders, and Biden campaign officials — traced the details of Biden’s recounting to three different tales of bravery. While Biden had awarded a medal to a brave soldier, it wasn’t the medal he said it was, the soldier didn’t do what Biden recounted, and the incident didn't occur where Biden said it had.

 

Quote

The soldier who performed the ravine rescue was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Barack Obama — Biden did not present him with a medal. Another story involved a soldier who braved Taliban fire to rescue a wounded soldier. He was given a Bronze Star by a general while Biden, a senator from Delaware at the time, looked on. The third story, according to the Post, involved a soldier who ran into a burning vehicle in an attempt to save a burning friend. He attempted to refuse, but was ultimately awarded a Bronze Star by the vice president. Over the years, the Post reported, Biden has mixed the details of these three stories, and his recounting has become more harrowing and less accurate.

 

Quote

The Washington Post reports that the soldier who initially didn't want the Bronze Star from the vice president — Army Staff Sgt. Chad Workman — recalled the ceremony as a moving experience. "He has that look where his eyes can see into your eyes," the staff sergeant told the Washington Post. "I felt like he really understood."

 

[CitizenVectron]

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

Team Hillary still out there dominating

[SaysWho?]

We already know he was most afraid of Gillibrand

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Something to keep in mind 

 

 

 

[SaysWho?]

16 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Something to keep in mind 

 

 

 

 

I'm... not seeing this.

 

1. Since when is Nancy Pelosi a saint to even Democrats?

2. Ann Coulter was begging Chris Christie to run in 2012 or else Romney would be nominated and Obama would win. I could go back as far as 2006, reading some weird article about the only way to stop Hillary was with Condi Rice. To this day, I remember that article just because the thesis became more hilarious each year. Wanting someone to run and making a saint out of them isn't exclusive to a party.

3. There were bloody fans of Joe the freaking Plumber, never mind a loser like Sarah Palin. And they didn't even become president. Primary losers like Herman Cain created their own radio show with a fan base. And look at how excited these people get for radio hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity.

4. ACLU, NAACP, AFL-CIO, NARAL, NDRC, etc. are all groups, some newer and some with a long history, that promote anything from civil rights to unions to fair elections.

5. Abrams has the right idea. However, this person seems to be missing the point that wanting her to run isn't a movement pining its national hopes on one person; people are paying more attention to Congressional races because 2010 and 2014 proved how important they are, and 2018 proves how important it is to have an opposing party against a Republican White House that won't sign anything he wants. It's hard to get much done when you lose an institution like the Supreme Court, and it's hard to create long-lasting change in the courts if a Republican is nominating the judges and a Republican Senate is approving them.

[legend]

12 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I'm... not seeing this.

 

1. Since when is Nancy Pelosi a saint to even Democrats?

2. Ann Coulter was begging Chris Christie to run in 2012 or else Romney would be elected and Obama would win. I could go back as far as 2006, reading some weird article about the only way to stop Hillary was with Condi Rice. To this day, I remember that article just because the thesis became more hilarious each year. Wanting someone to run and making a saint out of them isn't exclusive to a party.

3. There were bloody fans of Joe the freaking Plumber, never mind a loser like Sarah Palin. And they didn't even become president. Primary losers like Herman Cain created their own radio show with a fan base. And look at how excited these people get for radio hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity.

4. ACLU, NAACP, AFL-CIO, NARAL, NDRC, etc. are all groups, some newer and some with a long history, that promote anything from civil rights to unions to fair elections.

5. Abrams has the right idea. However, this person seems to be missing the point that wanting her to run isn't a movement pining its national hopes on one person; people are paying more attention to Congressional races because 2010 and 2014 proved how important they are, and 2018 proves how important it is to have an opposing party against a Republican White House that won't sign anything he wants. It's hard to get much done when you lose an institution like the Supreme Court, and it's hard to create long-lasting change in the courts if a Republican is nominating the judges and a Republican Senate is approving them.

 

I tend to agree. My impression that this exists in both parties is only an impression, but the tweets didn't offer anything more substantial than that either so I see no reason to be be compelled to think otherwise.

[thewhyteboar]

 

[Remarkableriots]

On 8/29/2019 at 1:22 PM, Jose said:

 

She even gives the crowd a stern look for a second as they were cheering Biden's comeback. If she ever wants to run for POTUS again, she needs to be way better.

He never answered why he fucking said it!

[SaysWho?]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

11 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

DC and RI obviously.

 

 

That said, those states on that list added together are 214 EVs right now. Add in HI, OR, WA, MN, DE, NM, CO, and VT and you're already over 270 EVs. But that requires winning TX and AZ. Once that happens, I'd imagine some Republicans might start to be on board with ditching the EV.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[Anathema-]

In explaining his gaffes, Biden gaffes again.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I do understand the general principle that a substantive command of the minutiae is not truly necessary for high-level decision-making, but to suggest that the details are simply "irrelevant" is frankly irresponsible.

[Remarkableriots]

Are you guys ready for the special town hall meetings tomorrow on CNN with the candidates?

[thewhyteboar]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

Better to let the GOP keep the Senate than let some progressive in, right Chuck?

[Remarkableriots]

Anybody else watching the big event tonight?