Octopus Overlords

The Texas Republican Party mistakenly sent a document laying out their upcoming 2020 primary and general election plans to Democrats Monday evening, including a target list of 12 statehouse districts they are focusing negative ads on ahead of next year's elections. In a move The Dallas Morning News described as the party's latest "bizarre political blunder," the internal strategy email offered advice on how to counter the "narrative driven by Democrats" about the GOP's lack of diversity as well as a timeline for a rollout of websites which will bash specific Democratic opponents.

rittchard wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:46 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:13 am

Smoove_B wrote:I just find it incredibly hard to believe people are or are not voting for Warren over her position on healthcare. Is the healthcare issue in the United States important? Absolutely. But we're on fire and in a death spiral right now.

If she was the only candidate, I'm sure people would vote for her over the flaming death spiral. But they have other options, and those other options aren't up there saying they're going to abolish your private health insurance.

I'm all for health care overhaul, but I have REALLY good insurance through my job. I have ZERO faith the government could swoop in, take it away, and replace it with something better. I'm all for helping people with no insurance get insurance. I'm all for helping people with overpriced insurance get affordable insurance. I draw the line, however, at fucking up my good insurance to achieve those goals. It's not that I'm unwilling to make sacrifices for the greater good; it's that I think there are other ways to accomplish those goals without breaking half the country to do so.

Totally agree with YK here. I don't love my insurance, but my company has somehow worked it out the past two years that they pay for it entirely. So in order for another system to be better for me, it would have to give me all the same benefits and PAY me lol. I'm guessing that's not going to happen.

As for Warren, I don't think it's being a woman that hurt her, to me it's more that she was campaigning so hard early on being the smartest one in the pack that has a plan for everything (and implying everyone else was lagging her on big bold ideas). And then having perhaps the most important plan of all her plans being called out for not being fully thought out, dodging to answer questions about it, and then having to backtrack on some of the biggest ideas in it. It's the old "wishy washy" "flip flop" thing, as well as the evasiveness, that I think really turns some people off.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:51 pm My carrier would be happy to let me start a treatment plan, wait two months and then deny it. They have also stopped covering treatments with no notification.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:08 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:51 pm My carrier would be happy to let me start a treatment plan, wait two months and then deny it. They have also stopped covering treatments with no notification.

Appeal

rittchard wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:46 pm Employer sponsored health care is great so long as you can count on being employed by sponsor for healthcare. Our "disruptive" economy... Well, what ever happened to pensions... employer medical coverage after retirement... Employer/Employee loyalty...

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:18 pm But again, I'll happily give kudos to a company called Health Care Advocates, hired in tandem with my crap carriers and agent. They have saved me so much time and aggravation with appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:38 am I'm probably just retreating into cynicism, but my gut feeling is that Warren's popularity is dropping because she's a woman. The fact that old white men continue to surge in popularity tells me we're still not there yet as a society, accepting a woman being in charge. That's not me lamenting PC culture or the ethics in gaming either, I'm just saying at the end of the day no one is agonizing over policy stump speeches while standing behind the voting booth curtain. My gut is that people are (1) voting single issues and/or (2) voting for the person they think embodies what a President of the United States should look like. And apparently it's still overwhelming old white man.

rittchard wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:46 pm
As for Warren, I don't think it's being a woman that hurt her, to me it's more that she was campaigning so hard early on being the smartest one in the pack that has a plan for everything (and implying everyone else was lagging her on big bold ideas). And then having perhaps the most important plan of all her plans being called out for not being fully thought out, dodging to answer questions about it, and then having to backtrack on some of the biggest ideas in it. It's the old "wishy washy" "flip flop" thing, as well as the evasiveness, that I think really turns some people off.

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:50 amBut that doesn't explain how her popularity rose in the first place - and the timing of her drop seems to be running about the same time frame as her health care plan and how to pay for it got more attention. You're going to need to explain how she increased her popularity to begin with, and how it is just recently that people started noticing she is a woman I think that will be some tortured logic there

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:33 am She was new and exciting. Then people like Biden and Sanders came barreling in and when given the choice, apparently the general population feels comforted by old white men, not old white women - even when (fundamentally) they're all cut from the same cloth and realistically all have the same chances of doing anything as President.

After billionaire and former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg formally entered the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Sunday, Bloomberg agency Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait circulated a memo to editorial and research staff. In it, Micklethwait told staff it would not “investigate” either his owner and boss, or any of his boss’s Democratic opponents:

We will continue our tradition of not investigating Mike (and his family and foundation) and we will extend the same policy to his rivals in the Democratic primaries. We cannot treat Mike’s democratic competitors differently from him.

If Mike Bloomberg had any respect for the news business he would encourage his editorial staff to kick him in the balls at every opportunity. Either that, or he would sell his media business. Or not run for president.

Characteristically, he picked the one path that is most contemptible and destructive, retaining ownership of one of the world’s biggest news outlets just to defang it for the duration of his (incidentally moronic) presidential run. It’s an awesomely selfish act that shows his contempt for the whole idea of journalism.

Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:41 am Dude you didn't know was running drops out: Aloha, Joe Sestak.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:26 pm Rolling Stone

After billionaire and former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg formally entered the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Sunday, Bloomberg agency Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait circulated a memo to editorial and research staff. In it, Micklethwait told staff it would not “investigate” either his owner and boss, or any of his boss’s Democratic opponents:

President Donald Trump is revoking press credentials for Bloomberg News employees in response to its decision to refrain from investigating Mike Bloomberg or his Democratic rivals during the presidential primaries, a campaign spokesman said Monday.
...
This is not the first time that the Trump campaign has revoked a media outlet’s credentials. During Trump’s 2016 presidential run, his campaign revoked the press credentials of reporters from The Washington Post, Politico, Buzzfeed and The Huffington Post. Yet in these instances, the outlets were not owned by Trump’s political opponent.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:15 pm I liked her as well, but she might be better off right now in the Senate. Plus, there may be a role for her in the next administration, assuming we can right the ship.

Fireball wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:48 pm It's sad that Harris is departing while candidates like Williamson, Yang, Gabbard, Steyer and Bloomberg remain.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:00 pm

Fireball wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:48 pm It's sad that Harris is departing while candidates like Williamson, Yang, Gabbard, Steyer and Bloomberg remain.

+1

But maybe it makes sense that she leaves the race before it costs her any real status. She remains positioned to be an effective and powerful senator. (Compare the sad jokes that Rubio and Cruz made of themselves.)

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:37 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:00 pm

Fireball wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:48 pm It's sad that Harris is departing while candidates like Williamson, Yang, Gabbard, Steyer and Bloomberg remain.

+1

But maybe it makes sense that she leaves the race before it costs her any real status. She remains positioned to be an effective and powerful senator. (Compare the sad jokes that Rubio and Cruz made of themselves.)

It comes down to funding. Remember, Bill Clinton was polling at about 3% prior to the primaries.

Asked in a wide-ranging interview Wednesday on SiriusXM's "Howard Stern Show" if she hated or was "upset" with Sanders, Clinton replied, "No, disappointed. And I hope he doesn't do it again to whoever gets the nomination."

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:49 pm Clinton still 'disappointed' Sanders held off on endorsing her in 2016

Asked in a wide-ranging interview Wednesday on SiriusXM's "Howard Stern Show" if she hated or was "upset" with Sanders, Clinton replied, "No, disappointed. And I hope he doesn't do it again to whoever gets the nomination."

Remus West wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:48 am Hell, I'll admit that a good portion of the reason I dislike Bernie so much is I feel like he could have thrown his support to her much more quickly and strongly and in doing so helped the world avoid our current disaster in office.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:30 am

Remus West wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:48 am Hell, I'll admit that a good portion of the reason I dislike Bernie so much is I feel like he could have thrown his support to her much more quickly and strongly and in doing so helped the world avoid our current disaster in office.

I dunno. Maybe it's because I was a Bernie supporter. Sitting here typing, I agree that he didn't know when to bow out and that this a stain on his wanting to do what's best for the nation. But for me, my distrust came as he flaked out as he was withdrawing where he didn't seem to have verfiable facts to back his passionate progressiveness. Suddenly it was if he had to make it up as he went along to feed his ego. He became more and more of a crazy aunt/uncle you want get away from at a family event. Even then, I didn't come to really dislike him until he threw his hat in again. Warren is clearly the better progressive than Bernie. She is an actual democrat to boot. But Bernie came out for the Bernie brand, not for nation. So he's a distraction at a time where we clearly shouldn't have him as a distraction. That is the lion's share of how I came to dislike Bernie so much. Similar reason. Different timeline. Maybe you just saw things so much clearer than I did four years ago and it takes hindsight to see it happening now.

(CNN)Joe Biden's feisty exchange with a retired Iowa farmer on Thursday perfectly captured the perils and the potential of his candidacy.

In a human moment defending his son, Biden showed the authenticity, emotion and readiness for a fight that appeals to so many Democrats as they look for someone who can take on Trump.
At the same time, the elder statesman who is supposed to be the antidote to President Donald Trump was undisciplined and undeniably macho -- reminding voters he's an at times undisciplined contender who almost seemed ready for fisticuffs with a hostile questioner.
Thursday afternoon's exchange could benefit Biden at a time when Democrats say toughness is one of their most coveted assets in their battle against Trump.