Categories Politics

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
I’m just going to lay this down now so it’s on record:

Trump’s campaign has used the exact same strategy it used in 2016: smear his opponent; attempt to demotivate their base; and actively attempt to prevent or obstruct them from voting.

It is a push-down strategy.

1/


In 2016, didn’t win because he made a winning case to a big enough population.

He won because his opponent’s turnout was pushed down by a full-court press that tapped everything from misogyny to poll tampering.

2/

He is trying to run the exact same playbook against Biden.

But it isn’t working because:

1) We now understand it

2) Many who were effectively suppressed last time have had four years to see what that cost

3) Biden isn’t susceptible to the same illegitimate biases

3/

And 4) Many people who first engaged with politics because of Bernie are now well past the “...or Bust” vibe of 2016 and are now solidly active progressive voters

The media, pundits and analysts never fully reckoned with the extent to which Hillary’s vote was just suppressed.
4/

Instead, they overestimated Trump’s strength.

Trump only won by smothering just enough of his opponent’s support.

Some of the voters who that succeeded with in 2016 are vehemently un-smotherable this time.

5/
We all have a merry chuckle as they're voted down and we watch preparations for Biden's inauguration continue

Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber


Sort of

You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends

1/


Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona

When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first

2/
@philski68

And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue

So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely

3/3
@philski68

Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
People are already attacking Siegel as a 'Fox News guy'.

See...this is why I don't believe the Left really believes in science either...just their narrative.

Siegel does work for Fox, but is a Professor at NYU, FACP, etc.

But liberals are going to dismiss him...why?


If your first response is to dismiss someone because of their political or media affiliation...maybe consider that it is YOU that is the biased one.

Just saying.

Siegel may do a good job, or bad job (like Sanjay Gupta, who has done a good job in the past, but been awful of late). But he is a good physician. Just dismissing him without evidence is exactly the kind of thing Trump would do.

If we were consistent, we'd demand Biden perform tests on air too.

Of course, Dems don't want to do that. So there is a ton of hypocrisy here.
I’m just free-thinking this morning. If I had one message I wanted to give out before the Storm, if I had just one thing I wanted the people to know, what is it I’d want them to know? https://t.co/PHHjUpUzPG


I know what you’re thinking... ‘My fellow Americans...’ no. I wouldn’t say that. It’s too obvious for autists. I wouldn’t do what was expected. I’d leave that up to others. NOTE: 55 NEVER says where this message is coming from....


Read it again... 44 just says he will be sending an important message. It doesn’t say what that message will be. That’s why we’re autists. I’m not saying. I’m just saying. Sometimes we read into things what we want to.


That doesn’t mean he ‘Didn’t’ say it either. I’m not saying, i’m just saying, you got to read the signs. Watch the video. 5:5? 55?


I mean, I’d find a way to let autists know it’s an important message... I’d flail my hands around if I needed to ‘hey dumb@ss pay attention, I have an important message’