Lurker > Suprak the Stud

Except for New Hampshire and Vermont!

Theirs is every two years. A weird thing I found out only like a month ago.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I mean it means quite a bit, particularly at the local level. Governors have a ton of power. I wasn't talking about federal influence, obviously, and I don't know where you got that from. Sorry you disagree!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

There is absolutely no evidence Kavanaugh is an alcoholic. I mean, he very clearly drank a lot in high school/college, but that doesn't make someone an alcoholic.

It is also patently unfair to discredit Blasey-Ford out of hand because one crazy person that wasn't even brought up by any major news outlets or by the Senate judiciary committee is a pathological liar. False accusation can exist, and others still be true. One false one doesn't immediately discredit every other.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

538 and RCP now both have Ohio in the Dems favor. Florida has moved from toss up to lean democrat. Kansas, Georgia, and Nevada are all toss ups slightly in the republicans favor. Alaska is trending democratic (although still lean republican). South Dakota and Oklahoma are both competitive. The only bit of bad news at all for democrats is the Iowa race tightened significant in recent polling.

There is a real path forward where democrats lose 3 or 4 seats in the senate but gain 9 or 10 governor seats. I mean 9 or 10 is a bit of a fantasy still, but it isn't impossible! Dems could really hold governorships over 70% of the US population.

Senate still looks bad for Dems though. Very pessimistic on that.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

And it is also worth noting:

But those voters represent just 8 percent of the overall electorate that has voted so far. Seniors, those over the age of 65, represent more than a third of the electorate; among the oldest voters, 473,000 have showed up to vote already, a 78 percent increase over 2014 levels.

Senior votes are up to. Not anywhere near that 400%, but with the youth turnout not as robust in FL, it could easily be offset.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Like those TN, GA, TX numbers are phenomenal.

But what if Dems are mobilizing the youth vote in the wrong places? I think Abrams could win so those GA numbers are amazing. But TN and TX are still long shots. That sort of turnout is needed in MT, MO, IN, FL, AZ, NV most. There is definitely better turnout in AZ and NV, but you want that same sort of 400% increase to really feel good about yourself. It could be too little in TN and TX, but could've made an actual difference in the real toss up states.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

LordoftheMorons posted...

Maybe there actually was a Taylor Swift turnout boost...!

https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/1058532803263062019

Wow most of those numbers are fantastic.

But, uh.

That's slightly concerning for FL.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

Soup Rack, is crazy Sinema gonna win Arizona?

Arizona is the one I'm least sure about. Like polling is crazy for that. In the past two weeks, there have been two Harris polls showing McSally with leads of like 5 and 7. Every other poll (including a Fox News poll) shows the race much closer and there are more overall with Sinema in the lead.

My gut says McSally by less than 1. Mostly due to the partisan lean of the state and CANTOR score on 538. I also thought Sinema would be hurt more by some of the stuff that came out in the past couple weeks, but if anything (outside of the Harris polls) her numbers look better now than before.

It is a very strange race. I thought this would be one of the easier holds/pick ups for R's this cycle of the competitive states.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The closer we get to Election Day, the more pessimistic I get about the senate, but the more optimistic I get about governor's races. I really think one of this really red states is going to do something weird and elect a democrat. I have no idea which one, but I feel like democrats are going to capture one state they absolutely should not.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/governors-update-democrats-could-win-in-some-very-red-states/
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The Democratic Party should offer flights to red sox's house so voters can see what happens to the mind of an individual after consuming only crayons for the better part of a year.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Eddv posted...

I think 50-53 GOP seats represents the expected range.

Democrats would need some unbelievable luck to actually take the Senate and GOP would need same to hit 55

You're actually right if you go according to 538. 16.8% chance for 51 and 6.6% for 55 (using polls only).

I don't think republicans holding AZ and NV and winning FL, IN, MO, and ND sounds all that crazy though. RCP had it at +4 republicans just last week, and while they use a different model than 538 I don't think their predictions are entirely off base.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Prelimiary predix:

R 220 D 215
R 55 D 43 I 2

What. Lol.

53 R 47 D
D 221 R 214

That is what I see shaking out.

I really dont think his prediction is that unreasonable. Thats holding what they have plus ND MO IN FL. Thats entirely doable as all those races are close.

And somewhere in the range of 220 to 230 sounds entirely reasonable in the house. 215 only requires a handful of races to have bad polling, which is entirely possible with how little most races have been polled.

I think your guess is more reasonable but his isnt crazy.

I think 55 is absolutely crazy for the Senate.

55 is about as realistic as 51, honestly. Totally in the realm of possibility and it just requires one side to get a clean sweep on all the close races. Polling doesnt even have to be off one standard deviation for that to occur either way in those races.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I hope you guys are right, but I have this feeling some of us are going to be very disappointed come Tuesday.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Prelimiary predix:

R 220 D 215
R 55 D 43 I 2

What. Lol.

53 R 47 D
D 221 R 214

That is what I see shaking out.

I really dont think his prediction is that unreasonable. Thats holding what they have plus ND MO IN FL. Thats entirely doable as all those races are close.

And somewhere in the range of 220 to 230 sounds entirely reasonable in the house. 215 only requires a handful of races to have bad polling, which is entirely possible with how little most races have been polled.

I think your guess is more reasonable but his isnt crazy.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The libertarian party of Montana is not at all happy with this, so you may be right. They were blind sided and feel like their candidate (who's name isn't important enough to remember) was just doing this for name recognition.

Also, they have almost as many things they disagree with Rosendale as they do with Tester. So you may be right. It is also too late to get names taken off of the ballot IIRC (for example, Walker's name is still on the Alaskan ballot which is something that may hurt Begich).

BUT I do think this definitely helps Rosendale's odds. That seat is definitely more in reach for Republicans than it was before he dropped out.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

xp1337 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems will likely "lose" Alasks though.

Yeah, Alaska holding is arguably the biggest stretch in my governor predictions (outside cynic where I let it go) but the polling has been trending towards Begich (Even in a poll yesterday.) Granted, there's very little polling there so yeah. One pollster too. Early in the race the vote split between Begich and Walker was obviously tanking them both, so I'm hoping Walker's withdrawing can pull Begich across the finish line.

Might be too little, too late or just too high a hurdle though.

I almost kind of wish the democrats had made some sort of deal like with Sanders or King, where basically as long as they do mostly democratic stuff they agree not to run a candidate in those races. Begich is obviously a big name by himself, but Walker already won a race where he teamed up with the democrat so I would've liked to see that again. He's a good fit for Alaska and I think would perform better without Begich than Begich will without him.

Still holding out hope for Begich though! But that one feels like even more of a stretch than my four hopeful ones I listed above.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

A couple of fairly big endorsements today that may or may not have significant effects on close Senate races.

In bad news, Montana's libertarian party dropped out of the race and endorsed the republican. Libertarians got 6% last race in a race Tester won by 4%.

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2018/10/31/libertarian-withdraws-montana-senate-race/1833577002/

In better news, Arizona's Green Party candidate dropped out and endorsed Sinema. Green isn't as big of a deal in Arizona as libertarians are in Montana, but this was likely a closer race to begin with. The Green Party did get 1.34% of the vote in 2016, so it isn't an insignificant percentage.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/01/green-party-senate-candidate-endorses-democrat-kyrsten-sinema/1851848002/

That switches my percentages some. I'd say Tester by 1 and McSally by 1. I might actually swap both of those by Election Day. In particular, I think the Montana libertarian dropping out of the race is really big.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

SupremeZero posted...

pyresword posted...

Corrik posted...

Like, if you think Dems don't just side with their candidates just as much as Republicans then you are just being silly.

I believe that a significant number of liberals in this country would vote Republican in the hypothetical scenario where a sitting Democratic president actively encourages and fuels social divide in our country while working to consolidate power by eroding democratic systems, undermining public trust in the media, and propping up their own propoganda machine in its place.

So no, I don't buy into a "both sides" argument here, although it is admittedly possible I'm wrong.

Don't be absurd.

Democrats don't need such a big and fabulous reason to not vote for their party's candidate. They do it all the time for far sillier reasons.

A democratic Missouri state senator is currently campaigning against McCaskill on Twitter because she got her feelings hurt when McCaskill called her "crazy" for posting that she wanted Trump assassinated.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Oh! Governors are fun too mostly because I am much more optimistic about governorships than I am the senate.

+MI, +ME, +IL, +NM, +IA, +FL, +WI

MI, ME, IL, NM are all 100% pickups. Polling would've had to be intentionally falsified for any of these to be wrong. IA is probably another pickup as well based on polling, but that one is at least close enough that I wouldn't be completely shocked if it went the other way.

I am very bullish on FL and WI too and expect democrats to win both of those (ok they'll both be close, but I am for some reason much more optimistic about these races than the close senate races).

And out of OH, GA, NV, KS, I would be shocked if Dems didn't pick up one of those. I don't know which one, but those are all incredibly close (although slight republican leaning), that I would expect 1 upset there.

Dems will likely "lose" Alasks though.

So from 17 - 33 my HOT PREDIX is a democratic pickup of 7 (final break down of 24-26 but with much more of the population on the democratic side).

Gains of MI, ME, IL, NM, IA, FL, WI and one of OH/GA/NV/KS. Maybe 2 if the night goes really well! But a loss of Alaska so a net gain of 7. I think the democrats will have the "biggest" night here, with a solid gain in the house (maybe 25-30 seats) and a loss in the senate.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Crossfiyah posted...

We have a Democrat in the Alabama Senate seat literally any upset is possible.

I mean if it turns out republicans run another perophile somewhere then yeah!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

xp1337 posted...

Silver was talking about the Senate polls on Twitter yesterday and how there's a noticable divide between "gold standard" polls (nonpartisan, live-caller) and the online/robo-calls/GOP internals that are making up the rest of the data for the Senate races:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1057740703273500672

This is the thread where he discusses it, but the summary is that in the gold-standard polls, the Democrats look better and the chances to win the Senate are slim but still alive and they're about as likely to win seats as lose them. In the others, the Senate is over and it's down to if the Dems can keep it within -2.

Oh, very cool, I haven't actually seen that.

They had a good post on the senate today:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-need-a-systematic-polling-error-to-win-the-senate/

They point out that, well, yeah it isn't "impossible" for the democrats to win it, but they'd need a systematic polling error even worse than 2016 to overcome where they're at. The biggest issue is ND/TX/TN are all pretty much out of reach if polling is inaccurate, so even if Dems pull off a miracle and win every single close race, they're still at 50-50. And they go through the statistics of that happening and it isn't good, anyway.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I guess while I'm on the subject I'm going to do my HOT PREDIX. I am naturally pessimistic, so keep that in mind, but I do not think the Senate is going to go well for the Dems. At all. -4 is a real possibility but for now I am going fairly chalk with a -2.

North Dakota - Cramer by 12
Texas - Cruz by 10
Tennessee - Blackburn by 8
Nevada - Heller by 3
Arizona - McSally by 2
Missouri - Hawley by less than 1
Indiana - Donnelly by less than 1
Florida - Nelson by 2
Montana - Tester by 4
West Virginia - Manchin by 10

Basically, anything in the Nevada through Montana range I wouldn't be too surprised going either way. I am fairly confident in Tester in Montana, but I am being a bit conservative here just because polling has been so sparse. I'm flipping on both Donnelly and Hawley a bit especially because of how the polling has looked.

Losses by Heitkamp (guaranteed) and McCaskill (toss up) would especially hurt. Same with Donnelly. I don't see democrats gaining those seats back within 12 years if lost here. This should be a democratic environment, they're all about as moderate as you're going to get, and they're all incumbents. Losing them in these incredibly red states is something you aren't likely to get back. This isn't like AZ, NV where if they lose here I could see better candidates emerging in 6 years for the win because those states should be competitive to democrats. Even Montana wouldn't hurt that much (well, I mean it would for the next 6 years) because democrats seem to do fairly well in Montana outside of presidential elections. ND/MO would be huge losses with no easy route to recovery.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

These Senate Polls are so all over the place it is crazy.

McSally +7
McSally Even
Sinema +4
Sinema +6
Sinema +3
McSally +2

Donelly +7
Donelly +2
Braun +3
Braun +4

Heller +7
Rosen +3

I have absolutely no idea what to think of Arizona. That races polling has been insane, like you've pointed out. It goes from McSally +7 to Sinema +6 with just as many polls one way as the other. I have no real prediction there, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it go either way. I would think, just by the fundamentals of that state, that McSally should have an advantage. She might actually be the best candidate of all the candidates in competitive states for Republicans and AZ is a red state (leaning purple, but hasn't gone blue yet). So it is weird that Sinema has been as competitive as she is.

The Rosen +3 might just be an outlier. It is CNN and 538 gives them a somewhat significant democratic lean to their polling too. Most everything is showing Heller with a lead there, and 538 has him 5/9 times winning that seat. Pretty sure it is a republican win, which, again is weird since he is in a blue state. I would expect Rosen to be doing much better than Sinema but the polls don't reflect that.

Indiana has been polling close but slightly breaking for Donnelly. That +7 poll I want to think of as an outlier, but it is from Fox News who has had fairly good polling the past couple cycles and who tends to have a republican lean, if anything. Of those three seats you listed, I think this is the most likely to go democrat but I don't even know if that'll happen!

In contrast to all that, look at Florida. It is almost bizarre how stable that race is polling. All of these following polls are from different groups!

Nelson +2
Nelson +2
Nelson +2
Nelson +2
Nelson +4
Nelson +1
Tie
Nelson +4
Nelson +1

A senate race that is CRIMINALLY under polled is Montana. All those Florida polls are from like the last ten days. Montana, in contrast, has two polls in all of October. Tester was up in both, but I'd still like to see more polling there.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Inviso posted...

Did I miss something in the past few days? What exactly did Steve "White people are the only ones who've ever contributed anything to society" King say that has suddenly drawn the ire of people who previously didn't give a shit?

With Steve King it really is a revolving door of hate so it could be any one of a number of things.

He endorsed a literal white supremacist running for mayor of Toronto. He met with Austrian white nationalists. He told those people that diversity doesn't add anything and it causes harm. And, of course, part of it is likely in response to the tragedy in Pennsylvania in general.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/repstevestivers/status/1057327397685653510?s=21

Congressman Steve Kings recent comments, actions, and retweets are completely inappropriate. We must stand up against white supremacy and hate in all forms, and I strongly condemn this behavior.

Some might say that this is only being said by a sitting Republican congressman because its politically expedient.

I dont care. Ill take it, and I applaud Congressman Stivers for making a statement few others in his party will.

Yes, 100%.

It is worth noting that he isn't even in a competitive district. So you can't even do the cynical "oh he's trying to court moderates but doesn't mean it". He's going to win his seat and King is in a (suddenly, possibly) competitive race. And he didn't go soft with a "insensitive" or "troubling" label. He called it white supremacy, pure and simple. I think this is a very good thing and definitely applaud him for doing so as well.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Like this whole thing is so dumb and so poorly thought out that, if I didn't know about Jacob Wohl already, I would actually not immediately dismiss cries of FALSE FLAG.

Because either you are intentionally trying to get caught.

Or you are a monumental idiot of legendary proportions that might wind up in a history book some day for being that much of an idiot.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Has this tweet been posted yet?

https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/1057371849439502338
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Shadow Dino posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

There was an ad for the Republican for Illinois AG that was basically "hey Rauner is toast you should vote for me so democrats don't have both the AG and the governorship". Rauner had been running a ton of attack ads but stopped a couple weeks ago so I'm thinking they might have just quit on that race entirely.

They're going back to the ol Stop Mike Madigan play.

LITERALLY every other ad I've seen is basically "Mike Madigan is scary and coming to take your money." Like, literally even in US House races they're running anti-Mike Madigan ads.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

There was an ad for the Republican for Illinois AG that was basically "hey Rauner is toast you should vote for me so democrats don't have both the AG and the governorship". Rauner had been running a ton of attack ads but stopped a couple weeks ago so I'm thinking they might have just quit on that race entirely.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Hey 538 actually put up a whole article about the slew of Change Research polls that came out yesterday!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/house-update-heres-why-we-need-polls-in-red-districts-they-might-not-be-so-red/
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I mean by that logic red has also supported the plight of immigrants by voting for Clinton, so he's done just as much as Ulti if the only requirement for supporting a cause is "voting".

The argument of "you refuse to give up everything so clearly you are a fake supporter of a cause" is inherently disingenuous by nature though.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Eddv posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Like I said, Farrakhan is mainstream adjacent.

First of all, fuck Louis Farrakhan. If for NO other reason than the fact that he had Malcolm X assassinated. Imagine if we still had Malcolm X as a part of our racial and political dialogue and how much better off we would be

Second, this is flagrantly untrue ever since getting dumped by Obama hes been like dipping into Scientology and away from mainstream politics and in 2016 actually fucking supported Trump.

Like I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about here.

Where in the country are you from? This is fairly big news around me since Farrakhan is bigger in Chicago than most of the rest of the country. There are two individuals in the house of representatives, Danny Davis and Andre Carson, that either met with Farrakhan recently or outright praised him. It was covered fairly heavily in the local news earlier this year in the Chicagoland area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_K._Davis#Relationship_with_Louis_Farrakhan

Davis has said that Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam who has attracted considerable controversy regarding his repeated anti-Semitic and homophobic remarks, is an "outstanding human being" and "I personally know [Farrakhan], Ive been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him." In March 2018 he said, "The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth. For those heavy into it, thats their thing, but it aint my thing."

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/tim-swarens/2018/03/13/swarens-andre-carson-wont-rule-out-future-meetings-louis-farrakhan/415971002/

Ive spent my life fighting discrimination in every form, from anyone. As a Member of Congress, I have met with a diverse array of community leaders, including Minister Farrakhan, to discuss critical issues that are important to my constituents and all Americans. While many of these leaders have long track records of creating positive change in their communities, this does not mean that I see eye to eye with them on all beliefs or public statements. Racism, homophobia, islamophobia, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance have no place in our civil discourse. This is part of my responsibility as a Representative to the diverse constituency I represent. As public officials, we must all recommit ourselves to simultaneously advocating for our communities while fostering a more inclusive, tolerant society.

Again, I am not calling him mainstream at all. And his views aren't even mainstream adjacent. But he himself is, and by that I mean there are people that I view in the mainstream of democratic politics that will associate with him in some way or another. Like, Carson says the right thing there, but he legitimizes Farrakhan even by meeting him. These are just two local examples, and I'm sure with more digging I could find others.

I didn't know Obama "dumped" him because I was unaware the two of them ever had a relationship to begin with! I thought Obama (rightly) steered clear of Farrakhan his entire political career and would be disappointed to learn they ever associated in a meaningful way so I'd need some sort of source on that comment.

And the NOI is far more aligned with democratic politics than republicans. I think Farrakhan flirted with Trump because he assumed he was as anti-semitic as he was, but in recent speeches he has gone as far as to blame the weather on the US electing Trump (and warn the earthquakes are coming), so I would say its safe to say that he is no longer in Trump's camp (if he ever really was).
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The biggest complaints I've heard have been towards White Castle, but I'm not 100% sure that isn't a regional chain.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

scarletspeed is definitely ralph club's biggest contributor
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

You shut your mouth about Arby's you monster.

The got the meats.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

StartTheMachine posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Mainstream democratic politicians have either courted support from Louis Farrakhan or appeared in public with him without saying anything about his egregious rhetoric. You can ignore the anti-semitism in our party if you want, but it definitely exists.

Saying one side has more than the other =/= saying it doesn't exist

Also not a registered Democrat or anything, not as long as they still take corporate PAC money.

I understand that, but what I'm getting at is I cannot say for sure that there are fewer anti-semites in my party than the other party. I feel comfortable saying most people who are islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, etc are republicans (definitely not say being a republican makes you any of those things, of course, but that kind of bigotry is more at home in current republican ideology). I cannot say that for anti-semitism because I think this is a big issue on both sides.

Like I said, Farrakhan is mainstream adjacent. At least with Richard Spencer, you don't see Kasich or Bush or Rubio clamoring to take pictures with him. And Farrakhan has said things that are absolutely every bit as vile and hateful as Spencer in regards to Jewish individuals.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Mainstream democratic politicians have either courted support from Louis Farrakhan or appeared in public with him without saying anything about his egregious rhetoric. You can ignore the anti-semitism in our party if you want, but it definitely exists.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

(He either doesnt want to or cant understand that nuance, metroid. A noble effort, though!)
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Tag.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Well I think this shooting specifically is unfair to pin on Trump, particularly because this guy had been a rabid anti-semite for over a decade now and routinely posted about how Trump loved Jewish people and was part of the problem.

There is a difference between the alt-right (which Trump courted and are definitely anti-semitic) and neo nazis. I understand the end result is not necessarily different, but neo nazis unfortunately predate Trump by quite sometime.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

While I dont subscribe to the DEMOCRATS ARE THE REAL RACISTS belief because it is crazy and not true, I would say anti-semitism specifically is just as bad amongst democrats.

I understand why some Jewish leaders dont want Trump there particularly for his abhorrent rhetoric after the UTR rally. But like Corrik pointed out it isnt all Jewish leaders. And we have some very questionable people in our party as well.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Espeon posted...

Okay, this has been bugging me a lot in the wake of the MAGAbomber and then the anti Semitic mass murderer in Pittsburgh. But how the fuck is any human being stupid enough to think DEMOCRATS are the real racists in America? Sure, there may be some racially tone-deaf statements made, but last I checked, neo-Nazis, White supremacists and Klansmen werent lining up to back the Democratic Party. Its like that Gillum video: sure, Republicans MIGHT not be racist, but theres certainly SOMETHING about their policies that appeals to fucking racists.

Anti-semitism is unfortunately not just a problem in the Republican Party.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I will say that they did release a whole bunch of polls today, and the others don't seem totally out of line with other available polling. I just haven't heard of them before, and like xp said 538 doesn't even give them a real ranking yet.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Many of us woke up on November 9, 2016 wondering what the hell we could do. Mike Greenfield, the first data scientist at both PayPal and LinkedIn, started running his own opinion polls online to make sense of a world he didn't think he recognized.

I kind of doubt they provide unbiased polling.

I mean, I would love this to be true. The last poll from a "trusted" source on the race was Emerson College in early September, and they had King up 10 sadly. Hopefully I'm wrong but I'm not too optimistic about that district!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I actually don't see anything in there for approval delineated by race. It could be in the second to last link, but that is for platinum members only and I'm not interested enough to pay! So it could show a bump but I can't confirm one way or the other at the moment without Ulti copy pasting the raw data he's referencing.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Reg posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Reg posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1056879122348195841
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1056880287974649856

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1056913518367260674

I will let these tweets stand on their own. Too disgusted to do anything more than that.

This might be the second grossest moment of his presidency, tbqh.

Do you have "there are very fine people on both sides" as the first?

Oh yes, his response to the UTR rally was far and away the low point of his presidency.

But this is pretty inexcusable too.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Not_an_Owl posted...

Going back a few pages and talking about fake-ass Christians:

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1056957779783663617

Jeff Sessions gives a speech at a Baptist event and is interrupted by a white preacher quoting the "I was hungry and you did not feed me" passage. The white preacher is escorted out.

A black preacher stands up and reiterates the same points the white preacher did. He is immediately met with heckling and boos, and is then escorted out.

Are we great again yet?

I don't necessarily agree with the second guys point of "hey I'm just exercising my religious liberty why are you escorting us out" because it is fairly disingenuous to stand up during the middle of someone else's speech and not be expected to be removed. I couldn't stand up during that and give a reenactment of my favorite episode of The Office, and while there is freedom of speech that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want.

I think their underlying point is very important and I applaud their courage for standing up, but at the same time they shouldn't act surprised when asked to leave.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Reg posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1056879122348195841
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1056880287974649856

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1056913518367260674

I will let these tweets stand on their own. Too disgusted to do anything more than that.

This might be the second grossest moment of his presidency, tbqh.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/413572-hillary-clinton-leaves-door-open-for-2020-run-id-like-to-be-president

I honestly do not know who is more out of touch with reality anymore. Hillary or Warren.

If she runs again she wouldn't stand a chance, and I think she knows that. She was already not that popular with democrats, and next time she'd be running in a field with a lot more qualified opponents.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Yikes thats a terrible list.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."