• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About denstorebog

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,460 profile views
  1. CBO: Senate GOP healthcare bill would increase number of uninsured by 22 million 15 million more people would be uninsured by next year. This is probably going to be quite a hurdle for McConnell to overcome in the near future. (EDIT: Okay, somehow I managed to overlook that that's exactly what the brief 'article' from the link says. But it's true. Very little room for error and quite a few senators on the fence, even excluding the ones that have already come out against it.)
  2. And in the bizarre political climate in we exist I had to get drunk.
  3. I don't remember, I was drunk at the time.
  4. Yeah, seems a bit up in the air what will happen at this point. Though that doesn't prevent Breitbart from unambiguously declaring that THE MUSLIM BAN IS REINSTATED. That's what annoys me the most at this point. That Trump's followers will rally around him once more and giving him that uptick in popularity he craves so much, creating the illusion of him being a popular president simply because he's less unpopular than he used to be. Momentum of narrative and all that shit.
  5. I, too, was on board the wild ride that was the Ossoff mailing list. My favorites were the ones that claimed in the subject line and first paragraph that "WE MISSED OUR DEADLINE. IT'S ALL OVER." Followed by: "... that is NOT the kind of email we want to have to send you tomorrow. So can you chip in?" Two things of note, though. With mailing lists and contributions, you can get some pretty immediate data on what works and what doesn't. My guess is that they have it down to a science what to put in the subject lines and how to alternate between positive and negative messages. Secondly, I saw a screenshot of a similar fundraising email for Handel, supposedly sent to her followers by Mitt Romney (as if he even would even know how to send an email). I was surprised to see that pretty much every thing in the mail - the phrasing, the layout - was the same as those from Team Ossoff. Either the same company is running a double operation and making a shit-ton of money off of it, or this is simply considered *the* way to do it right down to every little detail.
  6. The irony of how we'll all be applauding when a liberal 2024 president decides to say "fuck it" to a conservative Supreme Court and send in the National Guard to lay down the law.
  7. Welcome to the board, TbW. You should probably be aware that biased, unfounded claims like these are going to be challenged and scrutinized harder here than you're used to on Reddit.
  8. If we are right, then the notion of Democrat incompetence is overblown. Sure, there are always things we wish we could do better, but if the wave election really is coming (and I'll believe it is until Democrats stop overperforming in every election), who's to say that the party is doing that bad of a job? I certainly believe they're receiving undeserved criticism in some. For example, they were chastised for not pouring a lot of money into Montana and now South Carolina, but this might be the very reason those elections were as close as they were. In that vein - I know everyone wants Pelosi to step down because she motivates the opposition, but do people really believe that the Republicans won't be able to make the same lightning rod out of her successor in the span of a year? I definitely think Democrats tend to fret too much about appeasing the opposition and finding flaws in their own people as a result. This goes double for their presidential candidates. Absolutely. I'm approaching this whole discussion as a pure numbers game based on the present situation, which is pretty much all we can do at this point. Things can go in any direction for any number of reasons, and the wave election could be canceled overnight as a result. Although it seems more probable that time will work against Republicans rather than for them.
  9. I just looked at a compiled list of districts that are currently R-controlled and lean less Republican than what Ossoff managed to move the needle towards blue. It's a whopping 70. "Oh, but Ossoff spent a shitload of money that the Democrats can't pour into seventy races." Yes, but Handel spent about as much. And the intense media focus on GA got every Republican out to vote. The reason the SC result was such a surprise was exactly because that race never became a funding and media magnet that got every Republican in the district motivated. This is looking pretty fucking good in the long run. But for some reason, some people derive a sense of here-and-now comfort from being the biggest naysayer in the room. Which, ironically, is exactly what could cost Team Blue the whole thing.
  10. No. No. No. There's nothing magical about the number 50 except for the particular district in play. If the margins shrink, it tells you what districts the Dems can be expected to win in the future. Currently they're doing well enough to contest the House.
  11. Wow. This is nuts. Okay, so to all the Dem-bashers in here: If the first 4 special elections had all been in districts that normally went +99 R, and Dems lost them all, but by a point or two, you'd also be saying that the Dems need to win something, or else. It's the exact same logic. Because otherwise explain to me what the magical margin is where a party *should* win in spite of overwhelmingly negative odds. Is it 50? 20? 10? I'm genuinely curious about the 'logic' being applied here.
  12. This is one of the worst uses of analogy I have seen. In fact, I have no idea why people (Inigima et al) are having such a hard time seeing the big picture. A need for instant gratification in a gloomy political environment, I guess. But the fact remains, if you want to stick with sports: The Democratic Badgers just started their season. They're slated to play 10 matches and need to win 5 to advance. 2 of these are against world-class teams who vastly outrank them. As bad luck would have it, they're slated to play against those two teams early in the season. During both matches they give their world-class opponents a really close run for their money. All they have to do now is perform just as well during 5 of the remaining 8 matches against local hillbilly teams, and they're good to go. But then their disgruntled, impatient fans burn the stadium and the club house down, stop buying match tickets and go home. Because they can't be arsed to wait for the rest of the season. And the mediocre Republican Sloths advance instead. Seriously people. Calm down. Be rational about this. Dems are perfectly on course to make huge gains down the road.
  13. If Dems perform half as well in the rest of the House elections as they seem to be doing in the SC one right now, they take the House. What do you know that we don't?
  14. What the absolute fuck? Remember that one bill that was overwhelmingly passed in a rare show of agreement between R's and D's? That bill that restricts Trump's power when it comes to Russia sanctions? Apparently it was just blocked by Ways and Means. Jesus, can't they let us have at least *some* nice things?
  15. There will be a certain return of investment. If Ossoff wins, the cost will be offset by an immediate increase in donations for upcoming elections. You'll probably see a torrent of emails in the days after from upcoming Dem candidates trying to capitalize on the victory, and it will work to some extent. No idea how much of the investment will be recouped, though. If Ossoff loses, though, it will have been a piss poor investment, because not only will the money be gone, there will also be a decrease in donations in the near future. Still, I think the DNC had to go all-in on this one.