Vaktathi wrote:
Ted Cruz asked Trump to campaign for him in Senate race

Donald Trump, a man who claimed Ted Cruz's father was part of the JFK assassination and that it was a "disgrace" that Cruz's father was allowed to speak out against him, the same man Ted Cruz himself called a "pathological liar" and stated "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and who attack my father”, is now being asked by Ted Cruz to campaign for him.

This is the sort of thing that really puzzles me most, how Trump gets so many Republicans to publicly denigrate themselves and sacrifice their credibility for his very fickle favor, usually only to end up getting thrown under the bus at some point, and they keep lining up for it...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ted Cruz asked Trump to campaign for him in Senate race

Donald Trump, a man who claimed Ted Cruz's father was part of the JFK assassination and that it was a "disgrace" that Cruz's father was allowed to speak out against him, the same man Ted Cruz himself called a "pathological liar" and stated "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and who attack my father”, is now being asked by Ted Cruz to campaign for him.

This is the sort of thing that really puzzles me most, how Trump gets so many Republicans to publicly denigrate themselves and sacrifice their credibility for his very fickle favor, usually only to end up getting thrown under the bus at some point, and they keep lining up for it...

It's a mid term election year. Mid term turnout is typically low and the typical mid term voter would be considered part of the base of the Party. Among Republicans Trump has an approval rating over 80%. Those Republicans that love Trump are the ones most likely to vote this November so lots of Republicans are kissing the ring and asking Trump for campaign help.

 Ustrello wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ted Cruz asked Trump to campaign for him in Senate race

Donald Trump, a man who claimed Ted Cruz's father was part of the JFK assassination and that it was a "disgrace" that Cruz's father was allowed to speak out against him, the same man Ted Cruz himself called a "pathological liar" and stated "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and who attack my father”, is now being asked by Ted Cruz to campaign for him.

This is the sort of thing that really puzzles me most, how Trump gets so many Republicans to publicly denigrate themselves and sacrifice their credibility for his very fickle favor, usually only to end up getting thrown under the bus at some point, and they keep lining up for it...

It's a mid term election year. Mid term turnout is typically low and the typical mid term voter would be considered part of the base of the Party. Among Republicans Trump has an approval rating over 80%. Those Republicans that love Trump are the ones most likely to vote this November so lots of Republicans are kissing the ring and asking Trump for campaign help.

Typically low, given how these special elections have going with deep red districts just barely squeaking by it won't be low or at least won't be low for Democrats

 Easy E wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ted Cruz asked Trump to campaign for him in Senate race

Donald Trump, a man who claimed Ted Cruz's father was part of the JFK assassination and that it was a "disgrace" that Cruz's father was allowed to speak out against him, the same man Ted Cruz himself called a "pathological liar" and stated "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and who attack my father”, is now being asked by Ted Cruz to campaign for him.

This is the sort of thing that really puzzles me most, how Trump gets so many Republicans to publicly denigrate themselves and sacrifice their credibility for his very fickle favor, usually only to end up getting thrown under the bus at some point, and they keep lining up for it...

It's a mid term election year. Mid term turnout is typically low and the typical mid term voter would be considered part of the base of the Party. Among Republicans Trump has an approval rating over 80%. Those Republicans that love Trump are the ones most likely to vote this November so lots of Republicans are kissing the ring and asking Trump for campaign help.

Typically low, given how these special elections have going with deep red districts just barely squeaking by it won't be low or at least won't be low for Democrats

In addition, I have read a few excerpts that suburbanites and women are more mobilized than rural voters. We will have to see what this means for the mid-terms.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ted Cruz asked Trump to campaign for him in Senate race

Donald Trump, a man who claimed Ted Cruz's father was part of the JFK assassination and that it was a "disgrace" that Cruz's father was allowed to speak out against him, the same man Ted Cruz himself called a "pathological liar" and stated "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and who attack my father”, is now being asked by Ted Cruz to campaign for him.

This is the sort of thing that really puzzles me most, how Trump gets so many Republicans to publicly denigrate themselves and sacrifice their credibility for his very fickle favor, usually only to end up getting thrown under the bus at some point, and they keep lining up for it...

It's a mid term election year. Mid term turnout is typically low and the typical mid term voter would be considered part of the base of the Party. Among Republicans Trump has an approval rating over 80%. Those Republicans that love Trump are the ones most likely to vote this November so lots of Republicans are kissing the ring and asking Trump for campaign help.

 Ustrello wrote:

My personal guess is the house flips and will flip fairly hard, and the senate will probably squeak by to the dems as well

 Pendix wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Alex Jones was banned from Twitter . . .

Um, I do hate to come out of lurking for what is probably a minor point; but I'm seeing this repeated at lot here. And; as far as I can tell; Twitter is the one social media platform that has not (yet) banned Alex Jones & Infowars.

Am I wrong about this?

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Here’s the thing, both of these people are clearly terrible, both say horrible things and both sides will defend their respective person, whatever, doesn’t matter.

What matters to me is this, who is deciding who gets banned, on what grounds are people banned, all these sites need to make it very clear.

Alex Jones was banned from Twitter for directing harassment campaigns against people whose children were murdered. Sarah Jeong has done nothing comparable.

Again, you are real damned late to the notion that perhaps it's not great that massive, faceless, irresponsible corporations get to decide who is given a platform and who is not. But this is something that has already trouble vulnerable groups more than it has Alex Jones. You try putting up a video on youtube about how it's ok to be gay, that there are support structures and that your family members who hate gay people are wrong only to have it taken down because "gay" is a sexual term and is it's inappropriate to make gay videos for children.

It is telling that the moment you chose to come to this realisation is Alex Jones getting thrown off social media while an asian woman was allowed to keep her twitter account despite saying one whole bad thing about white men. That you paint these two as equals belonging to just "two sides" in the abstract is yet further proof that you aren't a leftist. Your analysis is critically lacking in materialism.

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ted Cruz asked Trump to campaign for him in Senate race

Donald Trump, a man who claimed Ted Cruz's father was part of the JFK assassination and that it was a "disgrace" that Cruz's father was allowed to speak out against him, the same man Ted Cruz himself called a "pathological liar" and stated "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and who attack my father”, is now being asked by Ted Cruz to campaign for him.

This is the sort of thing that really puzzles me most, how Trump gets so many Republicans to publicly denigrate themselves and sacrifice their credibility for his very fickle favor, usually only to end up getting thrown under the bus at some point, and they keep lining up for it...

It's a mid term election year. Mid term turnout is typically low and the typical mid term voter would be considered part of the base of the Party. Among Republicans Trump has an approval rating over 80%. Those Republicans that love Trump are the ones most likely to vote this November so lots of Republicans are kissing the ring and asking Trump for campaign help.

The other thing to consider is that people who voted for Trump 2016 didn’t do so because he was a Republican. The often did so in spite of it... due to his opponent. Those votes likely did not drag themselves to the polls. Although, arguably Trump probably saved Balderson in OH.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ted Cruz asked Trump to campaign for him in Senate race

Donald Trump, a man who claimed Ted Cruz's father was part of the JFK assassination and that it was a "disgrace" that Cruz's father was allowed to speak out against him, the same man Ted Cruz himself called a "pathological liar" and stated "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and who attack my father”, is now being asked by Ted Cruz to campaign for him.

This is the sort of thing that really puzzles me most, how Trump gets so many Republicans to publicly denigrate themselves and sacrifice their credibility for his very fickle favor, usually only to end up getting thrown under the bus at some point, and they keep lining up for it...

It's a mid term election year. Mid term turnout is typically low and the typical mid term voter would be considered part of the base of the Party. Among Republicans Trump has an approval rating over 80%. Those Republicans that love Trump are the ones most likely to vote this November so lots of Republicans are kissing the ring and asking Trump for campaign help.

The other thing to consider is that people who voted for Trump 2016 didn’t do so because he was a Republican. The often did so in spite of it... due to his opponent. Those votes likely did not drag themselves to the polls. Although, arguably Trump probably saved Balderson in OH.

Nope. Republicans elected Trump and continue to support him. If they only voted for Trump because they thought Hillary would be worse (which is delusional), he would not maintain his current approval rating amongst Republicans. The vast majority of Republicans support Trump, his policy is their policy, his ideals are their ideals.

The only hope the GOP had to avoid this outcome was for Trump to lose.

 Frazzled wrote:
Except those calling themselves Republicans have declined to about 25% of the eligible voters.

 Frazzled wrote:
Except those calling themselves Republicans have declined to about 25% of the eligible voters.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The result in Ohio is too close to call.

Although Trump has already declared victory for his man, legally the result has to wait until they've counted the absentee ballots, and there are enough of those to flip the election if a good proportion of them were Democrat.

But even if the Republican wins it, this will still be a very close result in a constituency which was an easy Republican win at the last election.

Of coure you have to look at the turnout as well. GOP voters down might be explained as falling support for Trumpism. DEM voters up would seem to indicate the DEM electorate getting energised.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except those calling themselves Republicans have declined to about 25% of the eligible voters.

Which, coincidentally, is almost exactly how many people voted for Trump. Weird.

 DrGiggles wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Here’s the thing, both of these people are clearly terrible, both say horrible things and both sides will defend their respective person, whatever, doesn’t matter.

What matters to me is this, who is deciding who gets banned, on what grounds are people banned, all these sites need to make it very clear.

Alex Jones was banned from Twitter for directing harassment campaigns against people whose children were murdered. Sarah Jeong has done nothing comparable.

Again, you are real damned late to the notion that perhaps it's not great that massive, faceless, irresponsible corporations get to decide who is given a platform and who is not. But this is something that has already trouble vulnerable groups more than it has Alex Jones. You try putting up a video on youtube about how it's ok to be gay, that there are support structures and that your family members who hate gay people are wrong only to have it taken down because "gay" is a sexual term and is it's inappropriate to make gay videos for children.

It is telling that the moment you chose to come to this realisation is Alex Jones getting thrown off social media while an asian woman was allowed to keep her twitter account despite saying one whole bad thing about white men. That you paint these two as equals belonging to just "two sides" in the abstract is yet further proof that you aren't a leftist. Your analysis is critically lacking in materialism.

It was more than just "one" negative thing. https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1025471131996905472 .

 DrGiggles wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Here’s the thing, both of these people are clearly terrible, both say horrible things and both sides will defend their respective person, whatever, doesn’t matter.

What matters to me is this, who is deciding who gets banned, on what grounds are people banned, all these sites need to make it very clear.

Alex Jones was banned from Twitter for directing harassment campaigns against people whose children were murdered. Sarah Jeong has done nothing comparable.

Again, you are real damned late to the notion that perhaps it's not great that massive, faceless, irresponsible corporations get to decide who is given a platform and who is not. But this is something that has already trouble vulnerable groups more than it has Alex Jones. You try putting up a video on youtube about how it's ok to be gay, that there are support structures and that your family members who hate gay people are wrong only to have it taken down because "gay" is a sexual term and is it's inappropriate to make gay videos for children.

It is telling that the moment you chose to come to this realisation is Alex Jones getting thrown off social media while an asian woman was allowed to keep her twitter account despite saying one whole bad thing about white men. That you paint these two as equals belonging to just "two sides" in the abstract is yet further proof that you aren't a leftist. Your analysis is critically lacking in materialism.

It was more than just "one" negative thing. https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1025471131996905472 .

Rosebuddy wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Here’s the thing, both of these people are clearly terrible, both say horrible things and both sides will defend their respective person, whatever, doesn’t matter.

What matters to me is this, who is deciding who gets banned, on what grounds are people banned, all these sites need to make it very clear.

Alex Jones was banned from Twitter for directing harassment campaigns against people whose children were murdered. Sarah Jeong has done nothing comparable.

Again, you are real damned late to the notion that perhaps it's not great that massive, faceless, irresponsible corporations get to decide who is given a platform and who is not. But this is something that has already trouble vulnerable groups more than it has Alex Jones. You try putting up a video on youtube about how it's ok to be gay, that there are support structures and that your family members who hate gay people are wrong only to have it taken down because "gay" is a sexual term and is it's inappropriate to make gay videos for children.

It is telling that the moment you chose to come to this realisation is Alex Jones getting thrown off social media while an asian woman was allowed to keep her twitter account despite saying one whole bad thing about white men. That you paint these two as equals belonging to just "two sides" in the abstract is yet further proof that you aren't a leftist. Your analysis is critically lacking in materialism.

It was more than just "one" negative thing. https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1025471131996905472 .

"white people feelings are like greenhouse gases, if white people have too many feels ice caps will melt and polar bears will die"

lmao


So this is equal to harassing people whose children were murdered. Talk about a sterling example of white fragility.

 Ustrello wrote:

Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I prefer to see it as a very bad sign for Trump and the Trumpists.

I think there is a community of Republican voters, registered or not, who voted for Trump in preference to Hillary and since have regretted their choice as they have come to see just how bad Trump really is.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I prefer to see it as a very bad sign for Trump and the Trumpists.

I think there is a community of Republican voters, registered or not, who voted for Trump in preference to Hillary and since have regretted their choice as they have come to see just how bad Trump really is.

I would agree with that. We shall see. Both parties are splitting.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose

The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.

 gorgon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I prefer to see it as a very bad sign for Trump and the Trumpists.

I think there is a community of Republican voters, registered or not, who voted for Trump in preference to Hillary and since have regretted their choice as they have come to see just how bad Trump really is.

I would agree with that. We shall see. Both parties are splitting.

Possibly. There still seem to be a lot of GOP voters that are holding their noses and sticking with Trump for now, thanks to being served red meat in the form of tax cuts, etc. And I don't think the liberal Sanders left truly has that much traction with the Dems. Overall it seems like more moderate Dems are doing better in the primaries and special elections that we've seen.

Still, there are some interesting urban-suburban-rural lines coming into focus. The next decade or so will be interesting.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Of course it isn't equal, but Jeong is still pretty racist and honestly if you replace any of her tweets with Jew, Black, etc. people would get pissy and I would assume you would as well rose

The problem with doing a simple search-and-replace here is that the material conditions are different for different groups. White people in the West don't live under a system that devalues them whereas black and jewish people do. So the things that Jeong wrote are merely rude words because they lack the systemic support to become expressions of racism. Things would've been different in, like, China or Saudi Arabia because the context there is different.

 feeder wrote:
Jeong is a freakin' nobody. Of course there are awful people all over the place. The difference is AJ has an audience of millions, including the freakin PotUS.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Jeong is a freakin' nobody. Of course there are awful people all over the place. The difference is AJ has an audience of millions, including the freakin PotUS.

One major difference is she's now on the Washingtonpost's editorial staff... millions of people read the post.