Octopus Overlords

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 10:53 am

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 10:14 am Wonder if this changed his polling numbers. The last batch I saw a few days ago had him as the only top 10 Dem that projects to lose to Trump.

I think he's actually polling third in Iowa right now.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:05 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 10:53 am

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 10:14 am Wonder if this changed his polling numbers. The last batch I saw a few days ago had him as the only top 10 Dem that projects to lose to Trump.

I think he's actually polling third in Iowa right now.

The poll I was referring to was Trump vs. Dem#___. Too early now to worry about it much, but it is a possible concern. Winning the battle doesn't help if he doesn't also win the war. Whoever wins the Dem nomination has to be able to reign in a good percentage of moderates, including some that are a little right of center. I'm wondering if the Fox News interview gained some traction for him -- perhaps some of the less-staunch homophobes on the right might conede he is likable and someone they could deal with.

Joe Biden is breaking with many of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination by maintaining support for a four-decade rule that prohibits paying for abortions with federal funds.

Biden’s campaign said in a statement that the former vice president is sticking with his long-standing backing of the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which has been routinely added to government funding bills and blocks federal medical programs from paying for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman.

And while Biden would've been the only congressmember around to okay the original amendment, Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), as well as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and then-Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), voted for a 2018 appropriations bill that contained similar language.

Fireball wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:48 pm Pete is an impressive guy. His surge in the polls seems to have ended. In my rolling average, he was at 1% two months ago, surged to 8% a month ago, and has tapered off to 5%.

In the last month, Biden has surged up 10%, Warren is up 3%, Beto is down 3%, Sanders is down 5% (yay!), Harris is flat.

In a dramatic reversal, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday he no longer supports a ban on federal funding for abortions, known as the Hyde Amendment, a move he announced after a day of sharp criticism from campaign rivals and key Democratic interest groups.

The former vice president announced the change during a speech at the Democratic National Committee’s African American Leadership Council summit in Atlanta, telling the crowd that, in an environment where the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion is under attack in Republican-held states, he could no longer support a policy that limits funding.

“We’ve seen state after state including Georgia passing extreme laws,” Biden said. “It’s clear that these folks are going to stop at nothing to get rid of Roe.”

“Circumstances have changed,” he said.

As offensive as leftists found Trump’s policies, his style was arguably better suited to the age. Unconcerned with authenticity, he ran his campaign from an infinite present, declaring himself a really rich guy, who was also somehow a regular guy, who was also somehow a powerful guy, who was also somehow a foe to the elites. Like Twitter, his campaign was nimble and stupid — rejecting coherence in favor of noise. His frequent and flagrant transgressions of truth seemed sort of like a joke you could be in on. Williams and Oks were depressed that he won, but they had to admit that his new type of lie seemed somehow more compelling than Clinton’s endless marketing exercise.

If establishment politicians are all phony, and Twitter discourse is a compelling fantasy, then perhaps the main success of @MikeGravel is merging these two false conceits into one real one. In an online world where everything is understood to be a performance, @MikeGravel looks us squarely in the eye and admits, “Every politician is just a bunch of kids in a trench coat — so why not make them actual kids?” Instead of pretending a politician is a person, with verifiable personal beliefs, @MikeGravel reveals the kids inside the coat, enumerates them, suggests that we become one by donating a dollar. Instead of being gamed by the system, we are invited to game it ourselves.
...
“Trump was the first postmodern politician,” Williams says. “I like to think Gravel is the second.”

Oks sent an email to Gravel.

Three hours later, the former senator called back: “Absolutely not,” he said. “Do you know how old I am?”

Undeterred, the Teens kept calling for a week. On the night they finally persuaded him, it was raining, Williams said. They got Gravel on the phone and said something like, “Look, Mr. Gravel, you have not been in politics for a while, and we’re a lot younger than you. We were barely conscious when you were running in 2008, but what you said then, on that debate stage, you got no respect. You barely polled above 1 percent. Today, that is where the left is.”

They told him about Democratic Socialism and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the leftist energy on Twitter. They told him about podcasts and “Chapo Trap House.” By then, there was thunder and lightning outside; the Saw Mill Parkway was flooded. Oks recalled telling Gravel: “You don’t have to decide to run, but let us make an exploratory committee for you. Let us go online and start going at it, and see if people like it.”

Gravel remained skeptical — very, very skeptical — but bit by bit, they could sense that he might cave. “Eventually we wrote him a memo,” Oks said, taking a sip of his fourth and final Coke.

“He’s definitely of the memo era,” Williams said, claiming he first heard the word on “The West Wing.” “He asked us if we could fax it to him!”

After Gravel read the memo, he agreed.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:28 pm

Fireball wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:48 pm Pete is an impressive guy. His surge in the polls seems to have ended. In my rolling average, he was at 1% two months ago, surged to 8% a month ago, and has tapered off to 5%.

In the last month, Biden has surged up 10%, Warren is up 3%, Beto is down 3%, Sanders is down 5% (yay!), Harris is flat.

Hey Fireball - got any insight as to which campaign/candidate may have the best ground game in place? Saw some reports that Harris was ramping up in Iowa, but behind the curve, and I was wondering what your impressions are?

Thanks!

Fireball wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:02 am

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:28 pm

Fireball wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:48 pm Pete is an impressive guy. His surge in the polls seems to have ended. In my rolling average, he was at 1% two months ago, surged to 8% a month ago, and has tapered off to 5%.

In the last month, Biden has surged up 10%, Warren is up 3%, Beto is down 3%, Sanders is down 5% (yay!), Harris is flat.

Hey Fireball - got any insight as to which campaign/candidate may have the best ground game in place? Saw some reports that Harris was ramping up in Iowa, but behind the curve, and I was wondering what your impressions are?

Thanks!

In terms of Iowa, the general consensus is that Warren hired like 3 or 4 of the 5 best people to have on your team in that state. Nationally, you've got solid teams around Biden, Warren, Harris, Sanders, and good people with a couple of the others.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:09 am

Fireball wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:02 am

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:28 pm

Fireball wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:48 pm Pete is an impressive guy. His surge in the polls seems to have ended. In my rolling average, he was at 1% two months ago, surged to 8% a month ago, and has tapered off to 5%.

In the last month, Biden has surged up 10%, Warren is up 3%, Beto is down 3%, Sanders is down 5% (yay!), Harris is flat.

Hey Fireball - got any insight as to which campaign/candidate may have the best ground game in place? Saw some reports that Harris was ramping up in Iowa, but behind the curve, and I was wondering what your impressions are?

Thanks!

In terms of Iowa, the general consensus is that Warren hired like 3 or 4 of the 5 best people to have on your team in that state. Nationally, you've got solid teams around Biden, Warren, Harris, Sanders, and good people with a couple of the others.

Would you say that there are fine people on all sides?

Z-Corn wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:29 pm He's got the courage of his convictions, I'll give him that.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:36 pm He seems to be on the way to being primaried out. His right-wing challenger leads by 16 points.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:39 pm

Z-Corn wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:29 pm He's got the courage of his convictions, I'll give him that.

A hearty +1. I don't agree with a lot of what he subscribes to but I'd sit at the table with him and I'd respect him. I've never seen anything to lead me to believe his walk isn't honest and thought out nor that his highest ambition isn't to serve the Union.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:36 pm He seems to be on the way to being primaried out. His right-wing challenger leads by 16 points.

I haven't kept up but assuming it's true, how very sad. I keep hoping. I keep seeing bright spots. Then I see you say this. My poor state. My poor nation.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:06 pm One of the many problems we have is that due to the primary system representatives / senators are accountable not only to the electorate of their state, but also to the primary electorate of their party in their state. And at the moment the GOP primary electorate is completely fucking bonkers.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:36 pm He seems to be on the way to being primaried out. His right-wing challenger leads by 16 points.

Remus West wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:23 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:36 pm He seems to be on the way to being primaried out. His right-wing challenger leads by 16 points.

That 16 point lead is amoung Republicans. Michigan is an open primary State. I haven't seen numbers of how he polls within the general population but I
to assume he gains a lot from non-RW nutjobs being counted.

Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:19 pm Warren's the only one of the top 5 to be in the second group, which could give her more potential to do well (if more focus is on her, or if the other candidates seem minor by comparison), but I would think more people are likely to watch the first group than the second group.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:29 pm Any explanation for how these groups were determined? Seems odd for Warren to be grouped in the first section considering she seems to be consistently polling in 2nd or 3rd.

Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:37 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:29 pm Any explanation for how these groups were determined? Seems odd for Warren to be grouped in the first section considering she seems to be consistently polling in 2nd or 3rd.

They were randomly drawn.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:39 pm

Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:37 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:29 pm Any explanation for how these groups were determined? Seems odd for Warren to be grouped in the first section considering she seems to be consistently polling in 2nd or 3rd.

They were randomly drawn.

FWIW I do think that the RNC 2016 approach (divide them by polling, so creating a varsity and JV debate) makes more sense than the DNC's "random draw" approach. Those that the polls suggest are the public's current first choices should be side by side so that the public can compare them to each other.

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:18 am Sanders is desperate.

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:18 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:32 am I'm still unclear regarding his party affiliation. He seems to be trying to use the Democratic party as a way to horn in on the popularity of our bi-partisan insanity (knowing an Independent candidate is DOA) but I never got the sense he's truly a card-carrying member.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:38 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:32 am I'm still unclear regarding his party affiliation. He seems to be trying to use the Democratic party as a way to horn in on the popularity of our bi-partisan insanity (knowing an Independent candidate is DOA) but I never got the sense he's truly a card-carrying member.

He's not and I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with pretending to have the best interests of the country in mind when to stroke your ego while you do more harm than good. (Note I am not a card carrying member so making card carrying a thing is a problem for me)

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:17 am

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:38 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:32 am I'm still unclear regarding his party affiliation. He seems to be trying to use the Democratic party as a way to horn in on the popularity of our bi-partisan insanity (knowing an Independent candidate is DOA) but I never got the sense he's truly a card-carrying member.

He's not and I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with pretending to have the best interests of the country in mind when to stroke your ego while you do more harm than good. (Note I am not a card carrying member so making card carrying a thing is a problem for me)

Yeah, but it's absurd of him to complain that the party apparatus doesn't support him when he's not even willing to call himself a member.