Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Fri May 19, 2023 3:00 pm
What a disaster this would be:
Octopus Overlords
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Joe, no, the other one, for president
Page 1 of 1
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Fri May 19, 2023 3:04 pm
So 'No Label' is being funded by GOP aligned operatives, right? Anyone who thinks Biden isn't a centrist doesn't have their head on straight. FWIW this is what I've always worried about when I talked about how difficult it was for anyone to maintain a winning coalition that doesn't have any of the red states in it. The temptation to forge one built in fantasy is very strong. The 'radical centrists' really think there is a real appetite for this. They could very well hand us over to the darkness and/or hasten a hot civil war.
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Fri May 19, 2023 3:33 pm
By “GOP aligned operatives” you mean Russians (and/or possibly Chinese), correct?
Only half tongue in cheek there.
Only half tongue in cheek there.
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Fri May 19, 2023 3:47 pm
The oligarchs R us corporate candidate...
The call included several billionaire investors and corporate executives, among them Louis Bacon, chief executive of Moore Capital Management; Kenneth D. Tuchman, founder of global outsourcing company TeleTech; and Howard Marks, the head of Oaktree Capital, one of the largest private equity firms in the country. The Zoom participant log included a dial-in from Tudor Investment Corporation, the hedge fund founded by billionaire Paul Tudor Jones. Also present was a roster of heavy-hitting political influencers, including Republican consultant Ron Christie and Lieberman, who serves as a representative of No Labels and now advises corporate interests.
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Fri May 19, 2023 5:26 pm
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Fri May 19, 2023 5:32 pm
Who knows anymore. Our esteemed elite have made it impossible to see who is donating money so it could be anyone.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 3:33 pm By “GOP aligned operatives” you mean Russians (and/or possibly Chinese), correct?
Only half tongue in cheek there.
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Fri May 19, 2023 5:54 pm
Clarence Thomas's vacation buddy Harlan Crow is a big funder of "No Labels." So, yeah.malchior wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 3:04 pm So 'No Label' is being funded by GOP aligned operatives, right? Anyone who thinks Biden isn't a centrist doesn't have their head on straight. FWIW this is what I've always worried about when I talked about how difficult it was for anyone to maintain a winning coalition that doesn't have any of the red states in it. The temptation to forge one built in fantasy is very strong. The 'radical centrists' really think there is a real appetite for this. They could very well hand us over to the darkness and/or hasten a hot civil war.
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Fri May 19, 2023 6:09 pm
Also, there's no chance in hell that Manchin can win CA (hell, I expect he would lose West Virginia!), so this is just to eff Biden up in the swing states.Holman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 5:54 pmClarence Thomas's vacation buddy Harlan Crow is a big funder of "No Labels." So, yeah.malchior wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 3:04 pm So 'No Label' is being funded by GOP aligned operatives, right? Anyone who thinks Biden isn't a centrist doesn't have their head on straight. FWIW this is what I've always worried about when I talked about how difficult it was for anyone to maintain a winning coalition that doesn't have any of the red states in it. The temptation to forge one built in fantasy is very strong. The 'radical centrists' really think there is a real appetite for this. They could very well hand us over to the darkness and/or hasten a hot civil war.
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Sat May 20, 2023 6:13 pm
Wait, the other Joe?Joe, no, the other one, for president
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Sat May 20, 2023 6:33 pm
All the Republicans need is an “independent” that can take 5-10% off the Democrats in the way Perot took 18% of Bush Snr which undoubtedly carried the 1992 election to Clinton.
A conservative Democrat like Joe Manchin might take votes from the republicans as well. They need a Ross Perot not a Jesse Ventura.
They need someone like Tricia Cotham who pretends to be a centrist and then switches to hard right on a dime after the election.
A conservative Democrat like Joe Manchin might take votes from the republicans as well. They need a Ross Perot not a Jesse Ventura.
They need someone like Tricia Cotham who pretends to be a centrist and then switches to hard right on a dime after the election.
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Sat May 20, 2023 6:50 pm
I was expecting the black sheep Kennedy, before I remembered that he's a Robert.
I agree that Manchin might draw votes from both parties more or less equally. Ideologically, he's a moderate R, to the extent that ideology drives him at all. Sinema would be a bigger threat to Dems, IMO.waitingtoconnect wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 6:33 pm A conservative Democrat like Joe Manchin might take votes from the republicans as well. They need a Ross Perot not a Jesse Ventura.
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Sat May 20, 2023 11:07 pm
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Sun May 21, 2023 2:24 am
Exit polling shows that Perot voters would have voted roughly evenly between Bush Sr and Clinton if Perot hadn't run, so it is doubtful Bush would have won. 2000 is a far clearer example of a third party candidate costing an election.waitingtoconnect wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 6:33 pm All the Republicans need is an “independent” that can take 5-10% off the Democrats in the way Perot took 18% of Bush Snr which undoubtedly carried the 1992 election to Clinton.
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Sun May 21, 2023 3:55 pm
Pretty sure you mean 1992, unless you mistyped and completely mischatcterized Ralph Nader's impact in 2000.Defiant wrote:Exit polling shows that Perot voters would have voted roughly evenly between Bush Sr and Clinton if Perot hadn't run, so it is doubtful Bush would have won. 2000 is a far clearer example of a third party candidate costing an election.waitingtoconnect wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 6:33 pm All the Republicans need is an “independent” that can take 5-10% off the Democrats in the way Perot took 18% of Bush Snr which undoubtedly carried the 1992 election to Clinton.
Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
Re: Joe, no, the other one, for president
Posted: Sun May 21, 2023 5:50 pm
No, I didn't mistype - Nader in 2000 is a clearer example of a third party candidate costing an election. 1992 was not, per the exit polling.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 3:55 pmPretty sure you mean 1992, unless you mistyped and completely mischatcterized Ralph Nader's impact in 2000.Defiant wrote:Exit polling shows that Perot voters would have voted roughly evenly between Bush Sr and Clinton if Perot hadn't run, so it is doubtful Bush would have won. 2000 is a far clearer example of a third party candidate costing an election.waitingtoconnect wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 6:33 pm All the Republicans need is an “independent” that can take 5-10% off the Democrats in the way Perot took 18% of Bush Snr which undoubtedly carried the 1992 election to Clinton.
Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
Bush Jr won Florida by 537 votes. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida. While there's no polling to back it up, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that had Nader not run, Gore would have gotten at least 0.5% more of Nader's votes than Bush would have and would have won Florida, the electoral college and the presidency.