Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Fetterman campaign
Comments
-
A lot of focus on these two seats but it looks like Laxalt is going to knock Cortez out of the box in NV.Swaye said:I'm really just hoping for Oz and Walker at this point so all the investigations into Biden family corruption can be carried out in both chambers. And the matter of a SCOTUS Judge kicking off unexpectedly. House investigations alone will still be fun though. Hunter Biden 24X7 baby. /popcorn
It will be the Hispanic vote that decides it as it’s a toss-up right now. Her 18 point lead is now 7 among this group. -
I couldn't hear any of thathardhat said: -
I think I heard, "we're fucked Joey." But I could be wrong.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
I couldn't hear any of thathardhat said: -
Neither could Joe.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
I couldn't hear any of thathardhat said: -
-
We definitely agree on thisRaceBannon said:
That's why you never invest personally in any candidatepawz said:
Other than wanting a GOP seat in the Senate idgaf who wins. That said, the video Walker's kid put out regarding his parental skills was brutal. Fucking brutal.RaceBannon said:And if the shitty candidate Walker survives the smears and attacks and beats the wife beater then the case is fucking closed
-
Should vote based on policy issues and competence. That excludes every dem politician.Tequilla said:
We definitely agree on thisRaceBannon said:
That's why you never invest personally in any candidatepawz said:
Other than wanting a GOP seat in the Senate idgaf who wins. That said, the video Walker's kid put out regarding his parental skills was brutal. Fucking brutal.RaceBannon said:And if the shitty candidate Walker survives the smears and attacks and beats the wife beater then the case is fucking closed
-
I agree that directionally one should always evaluate candidates based on their policy and some level of baseline competence. What candidate that falls under for a given person is up to their value system.WestlinnDuck said:
Should vote based on policy issues and competence. That excludes every dem politician.Tequilla said:
We definitely agree on thisRaceBannon said:
That's why you never invest personally in any candidatepawz said:
Other than wanting a GOP seat in the Senate idgaf who wins. That said, the video Walker's kid put out regarding his parental skills was brutal. Fucking brutal.RaceBannon said:And if the shitty candidate Walker survives the smears and attacks and beats the wife beater then the case is fucking closed
A good example to me with Dems is tied to their view for energy ...
I'm all for the idea of evaluating cleaner energy sources and whatnot ... but what I am against is putting an artificial timeline on those ideas that could lead to an outcome where it's "ready or not" with the technology, application, etc.
Solutions to most things aren't linear and require more of a comprehensive solution than most care to admit -
I can't tell you how many people I've spoken to between 2016 and 2020 ...pawz said:
As of mid September, Trump endorsed candidates are 159-17 in primaries according to https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Donald_TrumpTequilla said:
There’s a difference between Trump himself and others trying to link candidates to Trump46XiJCAB said:
I have no illusions about Trump ever winning WA. But the Trump is toxic narrative isn't playing out like DIMS planned thus far. When things are really shitting two years from now, people are not going to give a fuck about J6th or any of the other BS the DIMS throw out there. The housewives will be voting with their pocketbooks. They didn't in 2020 and it cost them. Fat and Happy Trump made them didn't he?Tequilla said:
You do realize that the Dems try to link to Trump because it’s one of the few messaging ideas they have that resonates?46XiJCAB said:Look no further that two races in WA where Trump is the focus of negative ads. You have a war vet in Kent and the wife of a wounded vet in Smiley and both are getting hammered daily as Trump supporting election deniers that are dangers to our DeMoCrAcY!
And both may very well win. So what does it say about the narrative that Trump can't win in 2024 because 2020?
Smiley even being competitive is a huge positive sign that people are pulling their heads out of their asses in Washington
Don’t confuse their performance as a sign that Trump wouldn’t face his own unique backlash here
The states where the links are the closest is where it appears that Republicans are struggling the most
217-19 by this count: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/comprehensive-look-trumps-endorsement-record
Kari Lake is going to roll. Joe Kent is going to roll. Oz now appears to be a winner. Anecdotal.
I agree an argument can be made for RDS being a better candidate. Race is also spot on that the media isn't letting up on any candidate from the right, irregardless.
#winnerswinpotd
If you take Trump's name out of the equation, many of the policies and approaches to tackling problems are way more mainstream than people want to admit. Put in the Trump name and it's a full recoil.
What I think you're seeing with the "Trump endorsed" candidates is that their policy ideas are ones that resonate and most people are not necessarily swayed by casual links. Like you mentioned, it's where the links are the strongest (and honestly tied to the weakest of the candidates) in states that are more of a toss up election to election where things are most competitive.
The mistake that the Democrats made in 2020 was thinking that their election win was an overwhelming rubber stamping of everybody behind their agenda. The mistake that the Republicans can make in 2022 would be thinking that their very likely overwhelming win (with a number of Trump endorsed candidates) is a sign that the nation is endorsing Trump. -
The obvious unintended consequence of the insistence of government investing in certain types of clean energy is that a better technology that actually works and is cost effective will get suppressed because of the artificial power of people that got rich off of those inefficient investments.Tequilla said:
I agree that directionally one should always evaluate candidates based on their policy and some level of baseline competence. What candidate that falls under for a given person is up to their value system.WestlinnDuck said:
Should vote based on policy issues and competence. That excludes every dem politician.Tequilla said:
We definitely agree on thisRaceBannon said:
That's why you never invest personally in any candidatepawz said:
Other than wanting a GOP seat in the Senate idgaf who wins. That said, the video Walker's kid put out regarding his parental skills was brutal. Fucking brutal.RaceBannon said:And if the shitty candidate Walker survives the smears and attacks and beats the wife beater then the case is fucking closed
A good example to me with Dems is tied to their view for energy ...
I'm all for the idea of evaluating cleaner energy sources and whatnot ... but what I am against is putting an artificial timeline on those ideas that could lead to an outcome where it's "ready or not" with the technology, application, etc.
Solutions to most things aren't linear and require more of a comprehensive solution than most care to admit
