I worked basically across the street from that Costco for a few years

Legalize mariluana, Joe and you get an automatic 50 million votes.

I would have liked it better if he said "we'll have a holistic immigration reform plan in 100 days".

Please Joe, use "crazy uncle" in your closing statement

Biden was making fun for Trump comparing himself to Abe Lincoln by saying that.

Are other people seeing screen glitches or is that just CNN or my cable company?

fine for me

Raising the minimum wage has 60-70% support. Obamacare 55-60. They seem to be losing issues for Trump.

AOC has to be the first freshman congressman referenced in a presidential debate.

I know the most about wind

Agreed and don’t see that is speaking to moderates, I am a definite moderate having voted on both sides over the years and this is fine to me.

I see what you mean, hard to get into most of the specifics in this setting. I would be more surprised if it did happen within 100 days of his inauguration though.

to be fair, on a second and third listen it sounds more like he was saying "Go ahead" to the moderator. But yeah, that was a yikes moment at first.

(and do you know how hard it is for me to be fair in this moment? :d

Been a while since I have heard about the mental state of Biden

Good debate flow, pretty well done.

I thought each had fair opportunities to rebut.

Yeah, much better debate than that first train wreck. Welker was a great moderator. Biden did what he had to and I don't think it'll change much.

Okay, let me rephrase this; The minimum wage issue speaks to the rural voters that came out and supported Trump and led to his victory, as well as, the Obamacare issue.

Trump is using the same strategy that got him the presidency. The issue is, can he get enough voters out.

Trump started strong, struggled in the middle, and then picked up a bit again before falling off at the end. Overall a very uneven performance but maybe the best debate performance he's had going back to 2016.

Biden was pretty strong throughout. He was strongest in the middle part of the debate when Trump was flailing. I think he dropped off a bit near the end but closed strong.

Overall neither was bad or strong enough to move the needle much so that's a big win for Biden.

Moderation was absolutely outstanding. We got an actual debate with Donald Trump participating.

If you just got to america today and watched this debate, you would think that Biden was president and not Obama with how trump kept droning on and on about things that Biden had no control over since he was...not the president.

This format was much, much better.

Just talking to my wife who is a suburban woman, not a housewife, and she said Trumps whole attitude about the kids at the border is going to sink him. Not on ounce of empathy.

My solution for the 500+ kids is, start doing DNA tests. Have a registry for the parents and those people would also have to take DNA tests. Time consuming, but, it's the only way to be sure.

Stock futures did not go up or down significantly. I'm guessing market thinks it was a draw or not a significant win/loss.

Trump did better, but he's still carrying the same baggage.

Biden was fine.

The third debate generally doesn't matter.

The polls haven't changed much since before COVID.

I think Trump did enough damage talking about the coronavirus and the separation of children from their families to offset any positives he may have had. These two are so old that they are probably removed from how much of an impact coronavirus has had on parents and particularly working families beyond just being fearful of the illness. I think Trump botched that with his line about teachers.

Biden making the comment about eliminating oil was A pretty bad move if he is trying to win PA. Lots of oil and natural gas fields in between the cities. But, I’d suspect most of those folks are not Biden voters in the first place.

All in all, not much of a needle mover and I do think Trump continued to miss an opportunity to make up ground with women by dismissing the separation of children from families.

I'm so sick of people in general taking potshots at AOC. She's one of 400+ house members. She doesn't say anything other than what hundreds of people have said before and usually very common sense arguments. IS it because she's a woman? Because she's young? Because she's a democrat? All at once?

Being a woman that speaks on things that men usually speak about I think is the issue. But really if your argument is ever to put AOC down, then you are fucking stupid.

Granted I admit it IS something shocking and new to have a democrat actually fight for anything

Because they kept the toddler in a timeout?

Don't forget darker than lily-white.

Because she had a moment and a lot of press in an upset win in a large state, and has been a major face behind popularizing the Green New Deal and the general push towards more collectivist approaches to government. Some of the other aspects you mentioned played a role as well, but this is a big part of it. Anybody one side pumps up, the other side is going to put down. Particularly when the other side is as angry, often irrationally but sometimes not, as is the case right now.

oh yes forgot about racism. thanks cuervo. how could i forget that

that's another thing. Whenever democrats make a bill it suddenly gets a name and republicans stop actually saying what's wrong with anything in it or why they don't like it. I'll use the examples of "New Kids on the Block". All republican politicians do is say that "New Kids on the block" is bad and must be stopped. And they say it over and over again. Then I hear republicans (people I meet or know) say "ohhhh New Kids on the Block is bad". Never actually saying what New Kids on the block is about. Just that New Kids on the Block is bad and THIS candidate is for New Kids on the Block and that will "be bad for the state!"

It's so stupid, thoughtless, pointless shows absence of thought or analysis. I've not heard of "New Green Deal until this past week where I heard phrases like the above saying "It was bad and will cost our state"

It's really simple, a brown woman wants to help poor people and the environment. There is literally nothing scarier to rich white people.

Most of the issues that apeal to his base are loosing issues in a scenario where voter turnout is equal and people vote based on issues. That's why they turned it into a Trump-based allegiance, at best based on "worldview" or being against something but not issues to vote for.

Not sure if that's underreported or whatever, but by and large the clear majority of americans leans more 'left' (including 'green') than people might think based on the discourse of these things being up in the air or split down the middle.

Take the oil/energy thing: Trump was smirking like half of americans think that's ludicrous (what Biden is saying) and that's all he needs, when in fact 70+% up to nearly 80% of americans in recent polls (19 gallup was 73% on a similarly worded Q and PEW in May this year 79) said they think there should be a higher emphasis on alternative sources of energy like solar/wind. It's even a clear majority among republicans by now.
I mean, yeah, you'll sometimes see some poll associated with Petroleum industry etc give a different impression by posing the question in a leading way f.e., but overall it seems pretty clear.



The problem is that in recent times the minority has been voting more consistently for a plethora of reasons, many of those by design but some also steeped in 'motivation' and/or sucking it up and voting the lesser evil. And/or ignored actual issues for some 'greater good' ("yeah, renewable energy is good but not if it also means XYZ ...")

The best chance Trump has at reelection has never been gaining more voters, but keeping people from voting for Biden one way or another while maintaining his 'base'. Trump/Republican issues would almost never win elections, if everybody voted/could vote.

It's like an NFL team running the ball every play or an NBA team using the shotclock every posession: Keep the game ugly and low scoring, thus increasing the impact of chance/freak events/one single issue or 'issue' (like this "Biden is corrupt" thing).

It seems at best a split issue in a vacuum (recent poll f.e. had it 52/48 against fracking) with lots of softer factors also in play towards the 'green' side of things. Like how those oil and gas fields impact the local environment and quality of live factors. Far as i can tell they are a lot less remote and invisible than other fossil energy harvesting is in other regions. You could very well support it in general but be sympathetic to scaling it back some or regulating it a lot more or simply not pushing it further.

That's what happened with coal in Germany, transitions were much quicker and had much more support in areas where the negative impact was most visible (due to proximity to population centers, in this case right in the middle of them pretty much, and scope of operations) and it wasn't 'only' about obscure topics and/or economic viability.

Could this oil comment be Biden’s version of deplorables? I suspect it’s all we will hear about the next few days while millions are voting.

Didn't watch the debate. Sounds like it would have been good for Trump if this microphone rule had been in place the whole time b/c people seemed to generally like his style.

This is a good line from The Atlantic on Trump:

We need to transition away from oil and other fossil fuels has been the position of the Dems since at least Al Gore.

Kind of makes you wonder if the Trump campaign regrets spending all their ad money on his legal fees. I mean he, personally, does not regret it, of course. But the people trying to help him win would probably love to run more ads right about now.

Dola:

And if our country is such that the idea of transitioning away from fossil fuels and developing jobs in renewable energy is still so toxic that you can't win an election by even suggesting it, then we are so naïve about the way the world actually works that we deserve to be ruled by the GOP.

you're considerably sharper than I am with this stuff, but I think you're mistaken if you don't think the Trump campaign won't take snippets of what Joe said and run them in key areas. Assuming they have the money, of course.

Agreed. If the D’s lose because of that comment then fuck us all. We will get what we deserve and are doomed.

I've been hearing about it since shortly after AOC's class was elected and more intelligently than the way you describe. There's no question the nation's worst is on full display during silly season, but I'd also suggest that perhaps some of this is due to what news and commentary you choose to consume.

East side, Anderson. Used to be overt there a good bit when I was a DM for Aldi

Main thing missing here is that she is articulate, effective, and smart. Couple those with the other demographics and policy matters we associate with her, and she's a major existential threat to the right. Thus, the teardown has to occur as quickly as possible. In much the same way they knew Hillary Clinton was the likely standard bearer for the Democratic party (or "Democrat party" as they'd surely slur) they can see the writing on the wall. AOC has a wide following already, far surpassing her actual station in politics, and she has the cunning to stretch it out far beyond 15 minutes - that is obvious.

So, demonize her as a communist. Slander the "Green New Deal" based on any tiny element it contains. Dig up videos of her having fun as a teenager. Find a tiny thing she said here or there that doesn't hold up out of context. Drum up some innuendo about sexual mores. Find something that felt vaguely "too casual" for the moment. Have at it. Plenty will stick. Not to worry. Your base consists of gullible idiots, and there are plenty more who are persuadable. They'll come around.

This is the gameplan. She's a target.

My biggest frustration with Biden is that he just doesn't have that on-your-feet killer instinct. It's really not all that important a skill in actually holding office, but in being an effective debater - it really helps.

Just think how effective it would have been had he just gotten out some pretty easy retorts to stuff we all knew was coming:

- The reason we didn't do [that thing] when we were in office is because your party, the Republicans, blocked everything we wanted to pass. Not a single R voted to expand health care to millions of Americans. None would support fair immigration reform. None would get behind criminal justice changes and common sense gun laws. None of them. That's why in 2020 we have to get out and vote, all the way down the ticket.

- You and your operatives, running around in every country where you have huge business dealings, now drum up this bogus story about my son. You know it's nonsense, that's why you sat on it until now... trying to pull a fast one. It won't work. Americans see this for what it is, a stunt, malarkey. There's nothing there...but we do know that every time you claim someone else is a criminal, it's because you and the businesses that you haven't bankrupted yet are actually out there doing those crimes.

-Your virus math just doesn't make any sense. You are so proud about shutting down some travel from China, but we were way behind many other countries in doing that. You pull a Dr. Fauci comment from January, pre-spread, about wearing masks - where were you when everyone understood masks were super-important? At the last debate you and your whole team stormed in and refused to wear masks, even after knowing you had all been exposed. At every turn, instead of leading Americans through the crisis, you backed away and said you take no responsibility. Said it would just go away. THAT is why we have hundreds of thousands of dead Americans... you couldn't bear to do the right thing when we needed you to.



Shit, I'm not even in pure politics, and I can conjure this shit up typing on a message board. He says any one of these, even with a stumble here and there, and it's gold.

Instead, we get a lot of missed punchlines... the thing about dead teachers could have been good, but he didn't say "Mr. Trump thinks that not too many teachers will die..." to make it clear what he was talking about. You have to personalize a zinger like that.

The joking "Abraham Lincoln" could have been really funny... if he had just delivered it with the obvious sneer "heh, Abe Lincoln over here..." - that's a fucking layup. Instead, he booted it, too, my entire family was confused and so was Trump, it was so poorly executed.

C'mon man, be better at this.

I agree with you on all of that QS.

You know what Trump is coming into the debate armed with. It seems so easy to have rebuttals for all of it. I was hoping more 'zingers' to 'put Trump in place'. Fight fire with fire.

I think Biden is trying to do this the 'old' day, politic as a gentleman.

Some people aren't zinger debate people. This is who Joe Biden is. He's a Town Hall sort of person. You aren't going to change him now.

It's still sort of sad that as many of us that there are in this area, that we haven't crossed paths. The only time we were planning to get together Jared Lorenzen (RIP) broke his leg that was that.

Biden is still a terrible candidate, but he's the candidate we have, and the one that was chosen, so it is what it is now.

I was brainstorming this morning after reading an article on voter registration, and I was wondering, assume that the republican party continues its hapless journey behind trump into the void, and that they sort of adopt this nationalistic you must be with us on x, y, and z or else, that how can the democratic party overcome it?

I don't know about the timing, but at some point, acclimating a portion of your opposition to your own way, correctly timed, can be a death blow. So what if millions of democrats suddenly changed party to republican, and then, at the grass roots level, worked to change the dynamic of the party from within? Sort of subverting part of the party, and breaking the more moderate bank of people away from the more nationalistic part. We already see a large bank of opposition to the current path of leadership. We've seen large facebook groups subverted from within, could the same happen at local levels that could actually amount to a shift? Or is this all sort of too much video game strategy?

Further, what sorts of strategy could be leveraged? Or are national level arguments, that are broad, the most effective?

The oil answer is only bad if people didn't listen to him explain it. I'm sure the conservatives and republican party will make it sound like as soon as Biden is sworn in, he will hit a switch that shuts down all the oil companies. When in reality he explained, in the debate last night, that it would be an incremental change from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

In my opinion, oil companies can get on board and prepare for this transition, or they can go kicking and screaming into non existence like Tower Records did.

I'm not convinced she can ever win the WH, but I'm quite certain that she'll be an important political figure for as long as she desires. She's so much better at the politics than Bernie, especially in terms of building relationships with different factions among Dems. Schumer can't have much time left, and AOC has to be one of the frontrunners for that Senate seat if she wants it.

Restore majority rule. The GOP can't exist as is without the help of all of the counter-majoritarian elements of our system. The key to political moderation is requiring parties to garner more support in order to wield power.

It was probably Biden's biggest misstep in the debate and I understood what he was saying, but I don't think he did a great job of explaining it. The fact is we're going to run out of oil from known deposits in about 50 years if we continue use and production at the current pace. As you said, we need to be prepared for the transition that's unavoidable.

Thing is centrists don't shut down oil companies. They don't. I mean it's nice that he is incorporating more progressive ideals but I think he'll more open up alternative sources like wind and solar but nuclear as well and anything else scientists develop.

AOC will be in the Senate in the next ten years or so.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

is the senate considered a promotion?

I think she can win Schumer's seat when he retires, but if she doesn't she could be locked out of the senate for quite a while. Gillibrand is only 53 and whoever replaces Schumer would probably have three or four terms available. Things happen, people get federal jobs or run for Governor, but Senate seat windows are often pretty small.

If Schumer runs for another term in 2022, which seems likely, I don't think she'll wait in the House for a promotion attempt. I expect her next step up is the NY Gov.

The GOP has made a huge mistake in going after AOC as their #1 villain. If they had picked Omar as the bigger target, it may have worked better, because Omar doesn't have the same political skills and can back her way into the wrong statement more often. They mention Omar every now and then, but something about AOC just draws them in. They can't resist focusing so much of their energy on her. And then what people (even those who don't love her politics) see is someone who is smart, prepared, and engaging.

One of the major flaws of our entire system is that the intersection of "skills/talent/personality needed to govern effectively" and "skills/talent/personality needed to run for office and win an election" isn't all that large.

I strongly disagree with her political philosophy, but AOC is actually doing what she was elected to do, representing the ideology of the constituency that put her in office.

And to me, as missteps go, it wasn't that bad of one. He has plenty of time to explain it better the next couple of weeks if it comes up again. Yes indeed it will be running out to extremely hard to get to within our lifetime. That's why there's such a freak out when trump accuses Biden of wanting to ban fracking. It's ironic that the oil companies will soon go the way of the dinosaur or at least their main product will.


I agree, Biden more than likely won't shut anything down. The closest he will get to that, is putting the ball in motion for that to eventually happen. He did give a timeline of 2050, but, not having all the details, I don't know if that is supposed to be a drop dead date or meeting certain criteria by then. It does sound like is very open to more solar and wind, which is great and I'm not opposed to more nuclear, but, I won't hold my breath on that happening.

Definitely, that's going to happen whether they want it to or not and they know it. They're actually already preparing in some ways. Like most businesses though, what they want is to keep making as much money as possible now until oil is no longer viable.

On the first part, I don't see that working on this scale. When someone disagrees with the party line, they just get jettisoned. See: the views of some conservatives on John Roberts, etc. Some things can be coopted. A major national political party would need to be convinced en masse. The regional differences within such a structure would make any sort of coordinated effort, even if executed perfectly, unsuccessful.

I think you have to basically ignore the intractable parts and just talk to those who are persuadable, combined with motivating those who aren't committed ideologues for the opposition. I think it's also important to be careful what you stand for, but then actually stand for it. The tough question right now for Democrats isn't how to win - they're going to do that for probably the next four years at least. It's how to govern. How hard do you push on key issues without alienating part of your coalition.

100% agree with you on that. The smart ones will realize all the subsidies will go towards solar and wind and they will shift their business models to those, but, will definitely squeeze out every single drop of oil they can on the way there.

hell at this rate she'll become pope

Speaking of Pennsylvania...

https://twitter.com/aabramson/status...ub-6sA7nv9tCQg

That's scary. It does not look like PA will have enough in person Dem votes to overcome the in person GOP votes. And Trump will sue to stop counting the mail in votes. And the SCOTUS 6 might let him.

They started this back during the Obama administration. The big energy companies delayed the government from getting in bed with upstart alternative energy, while they started pouring money into it to play catch up and grab market share. Right now, the oil/energy companies are on par, and certainly looking to diversify their companies so they don't disappear.

I don't think there is any way a SCOTUS stops counting of mail in ballots which have been received by election day (and +3 days if postmarked by election day due to previous ruling).

I think folks are a bit too overly frightened about those sort of things...

Because you know if that does happen, the only real remedy is violent rebellion to stop a coup, right?

However, how many people think stopping a coup is worth fighting for, maybe losing a job for, or, even, potentially dying for? That number isn't 0. But is it enough?

SI

I am probably too frightened.

But the GOP has said that this is their plan.

And they only need 5 Justices to make it work.

Trump transparently tells you what Trump is going to do. And he's said that's what he's going to do

SI

I don't know why this was a big deal. Oil companies poll extremely low and oil subsidies poll even lower.

The oil industry is dying no matter what any President says.

It also isn't going to be quite as transparent as "don't count these votes because they are from Democrats."

The GOP controlled PA legislature will come up with some flimsy pre-text reason to exclude a bunch of mailed-in ballots that just so happen to be Dem leaning ("There were irregularities in the collection" or some shit). That ends up with a lawsuit by one side or the other which all ends up being resolved by 5 or 6 Justices deciding that "deference to the state legislature" means that it can do whatever it wants and the ballots don't count.

I'm sure they've been dreaming up these scenarios for months. And it'll be some stupid shiny bauble that hangs people up: "the mailman who picked them all up is a Democrat" or "We have some grainy video of something potentially untoward going on". And all the reporting will be about the mailman or the poll worker rather than the substance or the impact. Because who cares that we're about to overturn an election when we can find out that some guy smoked pot 25 years ago.

SI

I agree, it's really not a big deal. On the scale of 'Bad Looks', this would be like a 1 in my opinion. The spin though will make it seem like it's much worse than it actually is. Is there really that many oil/petroleum jobs in Pennsylvania anymore? Seems like it would be more worrisome for Biden if it was 1902 than 2020.

Oil is not going to be what it was, I agree with that. However, there are too many uses for oil that as an industry it will not entirely go away. Plastics, lubricants, etc.

Oil is too valuable to burn, but it has been the best fuel for our economy for the past 100 years.

PA had a huge boom when they were drilling in the Marcellus Shale 3-4 years ago. Ohio was doing more recently but that was in the Utica Shale.

I'll start by saying I don't think this will happen.

But, what if the plan is to sew as much chaos as possible, including violence from the Proud Boys and similar militia groups. At some point, Barr and state legislatures step in and say the vote counts have to be paused because of the danger to poll workers. At that point court decisions start coming in saying that counts of some votes are invalid. GOP state legislatures in PA, MI, WI vote to follow the Constitution and choose a slate of delegates.

Trump "wins."

It'll be around but it's still a dying industry. Likely hit peak consumption in 2019 and it's downhill from there. Prices are low and their business model now relies on handouts from the government.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Gillibrand isn't a cabinet secretary in the near future. Governor of New York might be a possibility, or even mayor of New York. I think she is eyeing something more federal, though. She is very young, so who can say? Whatever it is, she is going to be among the youngest people to ever win *insert major office*.

I don't think Ocasio Cortez has to strike NOW. I mean she's 31. So even if Schumer were to run for only one more term (he'll be 70 in November) in 2022, she'll be 39 when the seat will potentially open. And a decade in the House would really help with Upstate NY.

And yes, Gillibrand may get a Cabinet slot which would accelerate that timeline.

Ah ok cool. I've mostly heard about what's going in the Dakotas and haven't heard much about Pennsylvania and Ohio. Now I know! :)

Trump working hard to solve his problem with suburban women.

Trying to paint the guy who spent like 3 decades fighting for credit card companies and banks as a socialist.

Ok, watched Borat. Rudy definitely wasn't spanking it. It was a set up.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I highly doubt it, several of the big names have already gotten out. I think you're going to see some smaller not so well known companies move in and take it over. I will not be what it was, but I think it is going to be more stable over the long haul.

If you're talking worldwide, I don't understand how anyone could think oil is past peak consumption. Developing nations are still going nowhere but up in terms of their use. I don't think we hit peak consumption until the demand can't be met and the price spikes much higher than we've seen it. My best guess is the early 30s for that.

We thought he was doing his best to reanimate the dead, so to speak.

I feel his pain. Thank God for boner pills.

I walk the dog pretty much every night. And every night there are more yard signs popping up. Certainly more than I’ve ever seen. A real diversity, too. Biden. Trump. Black Lives Matter. Back The Blue.

Based on that, I agree with those turn out models that predict a significant increase over 2016.

Still plenty in there to show he's a creeper

As a PA resident, I wouldn’t be too concerned because the state has been really behind on getting people their ballots. My wife and I registered for mail-voting several months ago, received an email on 09/22 that we should receive our ballots in 10-14 days but did not actually receive our ballots until three days ago. So, I suspect this count is pretty behind significantly.

Haven't watched it but why didn't Borat continue until there was "more evidence" to "pop up"?

If true, I'm not going to fault a currently single Guiliani for hitting on an attractive woman. He's got a girlfriend but I'm sure she is well aware of what she was getting into and may have been the other woman at one time, so hard to feel sorry for her.

I am pretty sure that wasn't "popping up" without pharmaceutical help.

This is really good:

Young people are showing up like woah pic.twitter.com/FvQRN3dmjZ

— Ahmed Shihab-Eldin (@ASE) October 24, 2020

/agree - he was tucking his shirt back in his pants.

Shouldn't the presidents personal lawyer be a little more cautious about putting himself in compromising positions? We are all speculating if he was fondling himself but the real story should be why is he in that pot in the first place?