According to multiple signers of that letter they signed it in June and would not sign it now.
2022 US Elections
- Thread starter calodo2003
- Start date
According to multiple signers of that letter they signed it in June and would not sign it now.
I don't understand. The Guardian opinion article is dated Oct 25th. Signed by the "progressives" AOC etc.
Do you mean that AOC etc used the names of some people who signed something back in June and did not know about the publication today? That's even worse!
Or is this a letter that was published in June but for some reason the Guardian published it again today without the permission of AOC etc?
And what has changed since June? I don't understand this either!...
That one is clear enough: Ukraine conducted highly successful offensives and put Russia on the back foot. That sort of success changes things.
Changes what? They are asking Biden to talk to Russians about peace. Do you mean that AOC etc wanted peace only because they thought in June that Ukraine will lose?
This is my opinion, too:
This is a pathetic letter, no matter when they signed it.
It is really bad that some representatives signed this thing, indirectly supporting the autocrat Putin. It is worse that they are Democrats and "progressives". And it is really terrible that they are in the same party with Biden: they certainly have back-channels to communicate with him, the don't have to sign an open letter except if they want to blame their own party for something in public.
(The elections are in two weeks... but I won't go into that. Even for June this is a pathetic letter. )
It is really bad that some representatives signed this thing, indirectly supporting the autocrat Putin. It is worse that they are Democrats and "progressives". And it is really terrible that they are in the same party with Biden: they certainly have back-channels to communicate with him, the don't have to sign an open letter except if they want to blame their own party for something in public.
(The elections are in two weeks... but I won't go into that. Even for June this is a pathetic letter. )
It now seems that the Guardian added this note at the bottom of this opinion piece:
"On Tuesday, the members of Congress withdrew their letter that they delivered to Joe Biden on Monday night."
--- This makes this story even more silly! They delivered the letter to Biden on Monday? And withdrew their signatures on Tuesday? And some say they signed it back in June? What is going on?
"On Tuesday, the members of Congress withdrew their letter that they delivered to Joe Biden on Monday night."
--- This makes this story even more silly! They delivered the letter to Biden on Monday? And withdrew their signatures on Tuesday? And some say they signed it back in June? What is going on?
Does look grim, but I can’t help thinking that the polls don’t reflect the new, younger voters who will be overwhelmingly Dem. We’ll see soon enough.
Fetterman can barely speak at the debate. Absolute disaster. A stroke patient should never have stayed in the race. This is absolutely brutal.
I’m not watching it. Is it that bad?
It's high-pressure, quick thinking, quick answering questions timed to a bell and he's stumbling to form sentences and form words. Oz is barely coherent himself, but Fetterman is obviously seriously ill and still on the road to recovery.
In a highly volatile state like Pennsylvania, that poor performance in the debate could prove very costly.
Anyone had eyes on the New York governorship debate?
Anyone had eyes on the New York governorship debate?
Hearing the debate was a disaster.
No kidding. I just jumped to a random point in that video, and he's trying very hard to speak quickly to not seem like he's affected, but he clearly is.
Looking better for the Rs to take the Senate after last night.
This was a good article, thanks. It helps expose the mindset that most of us think is utterly bonkers but is clearly quite common in certain areas.
The woman that claims she finds it impossible Trump lost because she can drive 255 miles through rural counties in the south with towns with populations in the 1000-5000 range and think that's representative of the entire country is sad and foolish and frustrating and all too predictable. She says it s a pretty big landmass to be an echo chamber. It should be obvious that big cities have much greater populations. It's a strange gap in critical thinking to deride all these liberal elites in places like northern Virginia and California and not realize that the populations there dwarf the "big landmass" that she's talking about. Where I live, I bet there is a greater population in about 4-5 square miles than that entire 255-mile stretch she's talking about. That should be obvious but it's not to them.
If/when the GOP takes over 1 or both chambers, we are going to see gridlock and performative legislation like never before. It is going two years of zero legislation, "investigations", and out in the open economic sabotage.
I don't understand how political parties work in the US. It seems to me that the Democratic party is not really trying to win these elections. It was obvious since last year that the Democrats might lose. Then why did they not try hard to find some really great candidates?
One guy had a stroke in May. Okay, it can happen. In the whole state of Pennsylvania they could not find one person good enough to replace him? Since it is just a few States that are important, then why didn't they make an extra effort to find really good and capable people there? Including replacements, in the case there is some problem. The same thing with the pastor in Georgia. Is that the best person they could find? Really?
It is really hard for me to understand how it is possible that the Democratic party chooses such bad candidates. (Sure, the Republican candidates are also terrible, but I don't care about that, I kind expect it since their leader is someone like Trump. )
Fetterman is still leading in most polls, although Oz seems to have closed the distance in recent weeks. Unless most PA voting has already taken place through the mail, i would assume Oz will continue to do well on election day. Not sure what the Dems were thinking running a guy who can't talk properly against someone who talks for a living.
My point is that leading or not leading, elected or not elected, after a stroke this person is not what I would consider a "great candidate".
Why is it so hard for the Democrats to find some really good candidates?
(California has Feinstein and Padilla, I don't consider them "good candidates" either, but of course they are guaranteed to be elected. Still... it is sad that the great state of California does not have better Senators than those two. )
In regards to the candidates you mentioned, the pastor is an incumbent senator for Georgia. I can’t remember if he was primaried or not, but it is virtually impossible to oust an incumbent senator internally. Fetterman is the lieutenant governor of PA, there’s perhaps only one elected state official that has more name recognition politically than he does. The stroke was an unforeseen challenge.
Because there's an establishment bias based on hierarchy. Fetterman is the Lieutenant Governor of the State and was probably "next in line" within the state party hierarchy when a Senate job opened up.
The Democrats are running some bad candidates, but basically the only reason the Democrats have any hope of winning these midterms (or just keeping the senate) is that the Republicans are running some extremely bad candidates. Fetterman really shouldn't be leading in the first place, so that should tell you something about Oz too.
Exactly! That's my feeling too.
I don't really understand why the Republicans like Trump and his acolytes. But okay, I can accept that the country has a lot of racists, uneducated morons, idiots, etc, and many of those people love Trump for some unfathomable reason.
But then what I really cannot understand is: how can the Democratic party lose to these morons? Why can't they even find TWO great candidates for each State?
The Jan 6th committee is going to be dissolved.
Does this mean that the party is so inflexible that they prefer to lose the elections than replace the bad candidates with good candidates?
Warnock is not a particularly bad candidate for many reasons & the election was always going to tighten down the stretch. I honestly could not think of a better choice than to stay with the incumbent, but I could be overlooking someone.
Fetterman minus the stroke would also have been a good candidate, but the race was also always going to tighten. As I live in Georgia, I couldn’t speak to whether there would have been a better candidate in PA.
Warnock is not a bad candidate by any stretch, Georgia is a very hard place for a Democrat to win. Look at how bad Stacy Abrams is polling by comparison. Also notably, not a single poll has shown Oz ahead in PA yet. I think it's too early to sound the alarm bell on the Senate, the House is where people should be stressed.
Who or what organizations are the best at polling?
Great resource to see the grade / bias of pollsters…
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
Thanks!
Everything’s pretty much baked in here, but…
This is gold by Amy Schumer.
Crowd control is important.
