Page 103 of 1306 FirstFirst ... 353931011021031041051131532036031103 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,060 of 26103
  1. #2041
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Chard View Post
    Curious to see how most feel about the role big tech is playing and going to play in the race. There have been some developments recently that are worth discussion.

    Yesterday, Tulsi Gabbard filed a lawsuit against Google.



    Last week the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings about big tech censorship. Dr. Robert Epstein testified about his research on the effect that big tech can have on the coming election. Videos below and a pdf transcript available here.




    Could we be seeing a repeat of the tilting of the scales we saw in the last Democrat primary, albeit from a different source? Could this sour Democrat voters in the general against the nominee? The Gabbard campaign seems to have experienced this already.

    Dr. Epstein touches on the topic of equal time and I recall another poster earlier mentioning it. There is no way to currently quantify it.

    Brave new world.
    FWIW, Google's response is that the account was suspended due to some automatic fraud prevention system related to large increases in spending on an account. This seems plausible (my credit card company has done the same to me) and jives with the claim that the suspension happened while they were buying a bunch more ads. My gut feeling is unfortunate (for Gabbard) but not nefarious, and that is coming from someone with legitimate misgivings about the control/access that the tech giants have.

  2. #2042
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    I would guess no to the first question (so N/A to the second). I can't imagine this happening. You have an incumbent president, you run them unless something seriously damaging has occurred during their first term.
    I can't imagine this happening either, essentially for the fact that the race will be just as much who you are voting for in 2024. As a voter myself, I want the person that I am electing to be in it for the long haul. I'm not voting for you because I can't wait for you step aside and put my preferred choice in place.

    (Edit...I bet the Republicans would love if Biden took that strategy. A wide open race is usually easier than going against an incumbent.)
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  3. #2043
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I can't imagine this happening either, essentially for the fact that the race will be just as much who you are voting for in 2024. As a voter myself, I want the person that I am electing to be in it for the long haul. I'm not voting for you because I can't wait for you step aside and put my preferred choice in place.

    (Edit...I bet the Republicans would love if Biden took that strategy. A wide open race is usually easier than going against an incumbent.)
    Right. To me it seems like there are two outcomes:

    1) The first 4 years goes really well. Some poeple want Biden to stay for another 4 years. Rather than capitalize on the success for another 4 years in the presidency, he steps aside as promised paving the way for a contentious election. Whoever the VP was (who campaigned on a different platform with different policies than Biden 4 years prior) will either have to explain how they didn't mean any of that stuff and they're going to keep all the Biden stuff in place because its working so well, or they'll have to explain how even though things are going great they're going to change a bunch of stuff and try to defend why it is a) necessary and b) beneficial.

    2) The first 4 years goes really poorly, and the VP is poisoned by being a part of an unsuccessful presidency for 4 years.


    Edited to include your edit: Exactly. That's why my first post was that if you have an incumbent President, you run them barring absolute disaster.

  4. #2044
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    The President on the new FoxNews poll:

    “1/ .@FoxNews is at it again. So different from what they used to be during the 2016 Primaries, & before - Proud Warriors! Now new Fox Polls, which have always been terrible to me (they had me losing BIG to Crooked Hillary), have me down to Sleepy Joe. Even considering....

    “2/ ...the fact that I have gone through a three year vicious Witch Hunt, perpetrated by the Lamestream Media in Collusion with Crooked and the Democrat Party, there can be NO WAY, with the greatest Economy in U.S. history, that I can be losing to the Sleepy One. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”
       

  5. #2045
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    The President on the new FoxNews poll:

    “1/ .@FoxNews is at it again. So different from what they used to be during the 2016 Primaries, & before - Proud Warriors! Now new Fox Polls, which have always been terrible to me (they had me losing BIG to Crooked Hillary), have me down to Sleepy Joe. Even considering...

    “2/ ...the fact that I have gone through a three year vicious Witch Hunt, perpetrated by the Lamestream Media in Collusion with Crooked and the Democrat Party, there can be NO WAY, with the greatest Economy in U.S. history, that I can be losing to the Sleepy One. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”
    Have we seen "Lamestream Media" before? That's gold.

  6. #2046
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    Have we seen "Lamestream Media" before? That's gold.
    Many many times. That's not gold, it's old.

  7. #2047
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    Many many times. That's not gold, it's old.
    It's got a very "5th grade playground" feel. I don't closely follow our President's tweets so not surprising that I've missed it before.

  8. #2048
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    It's got a very "5th grade playground" feel. I don't closely follow our President's tweets so not surprising that I've missed it before.
    It's not his. I believe I heard Palin say it (hard to get that voice out of your head), so it goes back at least to then.

  9. #2049
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    It's not his. I believe I heard Palin say it (hard to get that voice out of your head), so it goes back at least to then.
    That makes sense. It's obvious enough that it probably dates back roughly as far as the term "mainstream media" itself.

    On second thought, probably back to whenever "lame" got introduced in its current usage generally.

    Mainstream music? I think you mean lamestream music, amirite?

    And so on.

  10. #2050
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Yeah, the I'll Only Serve One Term approach appears flawed, it seems to be a tacit admission the candidate may be too old. Bad strategy.

    Based on purely anecdotal evidence (and my throbbing big toe) I have changed my general view of the election. Before, I felt that the Dems had to do better than just a We're Not Trump strategy. They had to have a strong agenda.
    Now, I'm not so sure, reading stuff about some Trump supporters, including some people I know...I'm getting the feeling that Trump fatigue might suffice, just putting up a non objectionable alternative could work.
    No way to defend this view, of course, but the big toe rarely lies, and has been with me for decades.

  11. #2051
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    I'm getting the feeling that Trump fatigue might suffice, just putting up a non objectionable alternative could work.
    I think it would work, but the Democrats really seem to be fighting hard against this strategy.

  12. #2052
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I think it would work, but the Democrats really seem to be fighting hard against this strategy.
    I've pretty much concluded that their field will be something of a mess for months to come, it's just an inherently messy process. Wish I could fast forward to a year from now.

  13. #2053
    alteran is offline All-American, Honorable Mention
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham-- 2 miles from Cameron, baby!
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I think it would work, but the Democrats really seem to be fighting hard against this strategy.
    A big factor there is they’re not up against Trump.

    Yet.

    It’s a primary. Primaries are, BY DEFINITION, infighting. Yet, every election, people seem shocked by this.

    The GOP wasn’t exactly setting the world on fire last primary season with unity and popular acclaim.

    They left setting the world on fire for the general election. :-)
       

  14. #2054
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    My armchair analysis of the confusing state of the race for the Democratic nomination is as follows:

    1. The cacophony is the product of over 20 candidates, many of them credible in terms of qualifications.

    2. We have so many candidates, in part because Trump looked like an anomaly and quite vulnerable.

    3. Moreover, there was no obvious leader for the Democratic nomination as of the end of 2018. Biden, the current leader, seemed unlikely to run. The obvious candidates, Sanders and Warren, had obvious weaknesses.

    4. If a Democrat were to win in 2020, then that candidate would likely be nominated for reelection in 2024. Therefore, the earliest "open nomination" would have been in 2028, ten years after most candidates decided to run in 2020.

    5. And, of course, many, many elected officials look in the mirror and see a president staring back.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  15. #2055
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    5. And, of course, many, many elected officials look in the mirror and see a president staring back.
    "Every Senator looks in the mirror, and sees a President staring back. And the only cure is embalming fluid."

    -- John McCain

  16. #2056
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Hah! Chuck Todd of MSNBC's "MTP Daily," in an interview with former Gov. and Rep. and would-be presidential candidate Mark Sanford, closed with the following five words: "Be safe on the trail."
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  17. #2057
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    Right. To me it seems like there are two outcomes:

    1) The first 4 years goes really well. Some poeple want Biden to stay for another 4 years. Rather than capitalize on the success for another 4 years in the presidency, he steps aside as promised paving the way for a contentious election. Whoever the VP was (who campaigned on a different platform with different policies than Biden 4 years prior) will either have to explain how they didn't mean any of that stuff and they're going to keep all the Biden stuff in place because its working so well, or they'll have to explain how even though things are going great they're going to change a bunch of stuff and try to defend why it is a) necessary and b) beneficial.

    2) The first 4 years goes really poorly, and the VP is poisoned by being a part of an unsuccessful presidency for 4 years.


    Edited to include your edit: Exactly. That's why my first post was that if you have an incumbent President, you run them barring absolute disaster.
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Yeah, the I'll Only Serve One Term approach appears flawed, it seems to be a tacit admission the candidate may be too old. Bad strategy.
    Plus...instantly, the President instantly sets himself up as a lame duck. He/she may get a few things done in the first two years of their term, then...poof. Congress says "Ahhhhh Seeeeeeya".

    PS...Big Toe Vibes
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  18. #2058
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Has anyone ever run saying they would only be there for four years? If so, was their campaign successful? (I'm assuming no, or they backtracked on that promise.)
    That's sort of the coach-in-waiting concept that hasn't worked out so well -- Muschamp at Texas; Franklin at Maryland. Maybe even Joey Meyer at DePaul though not sure of that one.

  19. #2059
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    The perfect plan would be for the President to serve only four years as he or she appoints Kevin Spacey (Frank Underwood) as VP...what could go wrong?

  20. #2060
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    ... A brokered convention would be a disaster ...
    If it comes to that, think Hillary tries to get back in the game?

Similar Threads

  1. MLB 2020 HOF Election
    By Blue in the Face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-24-2020, 12:28 PM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •