WOW! Still divided 50/50.

[SlowSpyder]

So how do you feel about "building a wall will solve all our problems and Mexico will pay for it" sort of pandering?

He didn't say it'd solve all of our problems. It is a step to solving the problem though. It will take away some low hanging fruit. I think his part about Mexico paying for it is fine. He has a new trade deal with Mexico that should benefit us if it goes into effect as well as Mexico is doing a lot more today to help with the problem. The way I see it, Trump is delivering here. That isn't pandering, illegal immigration is a political issue. Student debt, basic income, free healthcare, etc. are freebies.

 

[sportage]

Lets face it, Trump still owns the south. NC and the likes of have been republican for years and that isn't going to change.
Every time the democrats lose a close race they brag of how close it was, yet the fact is they still lost.
Come-on.... we've heard this all before back when Hillary was running. All the analysis of trends and data but still in the end red states remain red and many blue states turned a purplish-red color.
Democrats, you can't keep counting your chickens before they're hatched. Or put out there more false hope that the loss in a close race equals a future win. That hasn't worked out so well for democrats, if they haven't noticed.
Democrats need a whole new game. They should forget moderate conservative or middle of the road because they will lose anyway going that route. Democrats need to try extreme far left liberalism. Why not? At least that will bring out their people to compete more effectively with the other side. If you're gonna win you're gonna win, and if your gonna lose you're gonna lose.
Enough of this middle of the road crapola.
Democrats need more people like AOC, and people that will stir things up because they can win and they do win. They can offer a real challenge and opportunity while retaining loyalty to the democratic brand of liberalism. If democrats really want to win, then act like it. Stick to your morals as true liberals and offer what the other side can never offer, real change. If democrats could find just a few more like AOC to run for the senate, they could take back the senate.
It's a dirty game and democrats need to give the people what they want, not what republicans think democrats want.

 

[Atreus21]

They should forget moderate conservative or middle of the road because they will lose anyway going that route. Democrats need to try extreme far left liberalism. Why not? At least that will bring out their people to compete more effectively with the other side. If you're gonna win you're gonna win, and if your gonna lose you're gonna lose.
Enough of this middle of the road crapola.

Good luck yielding the center to Republicans.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

After all the outrage over Donald Trump and AOC and impeachment possibilities and the upcoming 2020 election, nothing really has changed.
Look at the special election in NC tonight. Still nearly evenly divided 50/50.
So looks like another cliff hanger, another tight one, another squeaker, and probably more challenges to the outcome due to the vote being so darn close.
Pundits on all the major news networks try to explain it with maps, graphs, and analyzing past history and past elections. But why? That proves nothing....
So what does this mean? It means that NO ONE REALLY KNOWS!
Despite all the maps and graphs and analyzing of data, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.
And if there is a trend at all out of this, the trend is that anything could happen in 2020. ANYTHING!
Despite everything, Donald Trump "could be" easily reelected.
And despite everything, Joe Biden or whomever might come really close to defeating Donald Trump yet lose once again by only a handful of votes state by state.
So again, what does this all mean?
That the stress and anxiety over 2016 is about to happen again in 2020.
Pundits will get it wrong, polls will get it wrong, and well... it won't look pretty.
After nearly a full first term of Donald Trump, the country is as it was four years ago. Divided 50/50. Split right down the middle. Us vs them.
Obviously, not one liberal has convinced one conservative to change his or her mind.
And not one conservative nor Fox News anchor has convinced one single liberal to change their mind.
So here we are, once again stuck in a stalemate as 2020 rolls around.
Divided 50/50 down the middle.
And the only thing that we do know for sure is that NO ONE REALLY KNOWS ANYTHING FOR SURE.
I have a feeling this is our life. The life of America for a long long time to come.
No clear winners, and no clear losers. Only stress and anxiety, that is... for those who dare follow politics.
And its a wonder why anyone does.

Well, I have some observations. I'm not a "dyed-in-the-wool" Democrat. I became a Democrat after applying my own understanding of economics and particularly Public Choice Economics to the data and information before me. Originally, I came to a conclusion that I absolutely did not want concentrated industries like ("strategic minerals") Big Oil and its handmaiden Siamese twin Big-Defense-Aerospace making crucial decisions for MY government. So I went from being a non-committal fence-sitter to leaning a bit Left.

Now I've had a chance to modify my analysis and add in a cultural dimension.

Our elections have always been close to "50-50" because there are so many variables to account for in judgment. People want to vote for somebody that they "like as a person" -- or even if they deny it, statistically its an important factor. Then there are a zillion different issues: for instance, the Bible-Thumpers have this obsession with the "little fetuses"; don't want anyone to have gay sex "because it's ba-a-ud"; don't like the Founders' notion of secular government because only THEY have the One, True Religion Some of them could care less if the government goes bankrupt as long as some poor girl can be deprived of her abortion.

If there are X number of citizens, it's possible that the upper limit for visions of the future is X number of visions. But since you can't predict the future, you can't be absolutely sure that conditions of that future won't mitigate against the practicality of your own future vision. So again, in elections of individual candidates, it will always seem like a narrow margin of difference.

The notion of political ideology is both simplifying for the lazy mind, and complicating in the sense that folks think of our politics like an NFL game: once they choose a party, they've chosen a religion, and once they've chosen a religion, they don't need to think through things as a matter of common sense, because the ideology conveniently dictates their beliefs and preferences.

But since decisions have always been election by narrow margins, one can make a strong argument that the results were never intended to indicate a "winner-takes-all". Compromise was supposed to be the operative principle. If 51% decide to go in one direction that determines some handful of issues, do you simply deny the 49% their preferences and say "F*** you! We win! You lose! WE are the American people, and YOU don't exist"?

This explains some of the current divisiveness. What I find appalling is the attitude of the loyal Trump supporter. We're supposed to respect their choice of a sex-abusing, money-laundering, lying, philandering, treasonous, ignorant asshole who never had a real job, whose value-origins include a KKK father, in a family of serial tax-cheats and frauds. And we're supposed to say "oh, well! We have to respect your decision because you captured the electoral college and the White House even as we won the popular vote." I'm supposed to nod approval when a Trumpie asks rhetorically "Can't we agree to disagree?"

That circumstance of dialog is an outrage. To such a person, I'd barely offer COPD spit in Death Valley if they were dying of thirst. We're not gonna compromise. I'm not going to recognize you as a person of common sense and moral compass, just because "You Won."

For those people, I don't want an America with them in it. I no longer recognize them for any responsible judgment about anything. Go to the opposite side of the street! Stay outta my business, because I sure as hell won't patronize yours! Don't expect my "loyalty" for your Criminal-in-Chief, and don't expect my "loyalty" to you. I'd rather leak on ya than look at ya.

 

[Atreus21]

For those people, I don't want an America with them in it. I no longer recognize them for any responsible judgment about anything. Go to the opposite side of the street! Stay outta my business, because I sure as hell won't patronize yours! Don't expect my "loyalty" for your Criminal-in-Chief, and don't expect my "loyalty" to you. I'd rather leak on ya than look at ya.

Tolerance is great as long as you don't have to tolerate people you don't like.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Obviously, not one liberal has convinced one conservative to change his or her mind.
And not one conservative nor Fox News anchor has convinced one single liberal to change their mind.

Of course not, because conservatives are only driven by emotions and feelings, nothing liberals say can change that inflexible mind.
Of course not, because liberals aren't going to become cruel psychopaths.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Of course not, because conservatives are only driven by emotions and feelings, nothing liberals say can change that inflexible mind.
Of course not, because liberals aren't going to become cruel psychopaths.

World is weird like that
The Fuck Yo Feelz guys actually get their feelz hurt very easily.

 

[Jhhnn]

The right view of border control does not look like genocide either. Cut the melodrama.

Also, not sure if you saw, but there was an extensive investigation into the Russian issue. As I correctly called, it smelled like a political witch hunt, it looked like a political witch hunt, and it turned out to be, a political witch hunt. No impeachment, no charges. If they had something certainly it would have come to light. Your entire argument is built on lies, political talking points. That's yuck, that's ugh. Gross man.

And that whole obstruction thing & Barr's stonewalling Congress?