Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 206: Acostin' Fragile Don's Pathetic Press Conference

(+) Yeah! (+)

Looking ahead to 2020 (because why not!) I am much more optimistic about this map than 2018. I believe I've been saying since the beginning that democrats wouldn't win seats, and for good reason. But 2020 is much better.

They have a 1 seat loss. Say goodbye to Alabama. Bye Dough Jones! Thanks for being a good story for a couple of years your election was quite fun. But unless Republicans find another pedophile to run, you're toast.

Beyond that though...there aren't any real pickups for the republicans. There is Michigan (lol), Minnesota (LOL) and New Hampshire. New Hampshire is the only other real possibility there, but Shaheen fought off a tough competitor in 2014 during a bad year for democrats.

What do democrats have? Colorado. 100% He ran as a moderate but voted for literally everything Trump did. He's in a worse situation than Heller and Heller just got beat senseless.

What other possibilities do they have? I'd say maybe Maine. I know everyone is like "HAHA YOU'RE IN TROUBLE NOW COLLINS" but Maine is like liberal Montana. They like Collins a lot and I'm not sure if that has changed AND I'm not sure they'd find a good democratic opponent. Maine will vote democratic for president but I don't know how likely they are to take out Collins.

I think Arizona is a good target. Sure, they likely just lost this year, but by a single percentage point. This is another open seat and it really depends if they can find a top tier candidate or not. Not that Sinema wasn't "good" but she had some baggage associated with her. It will be harder in 2020 because it is a presidential election year, but it is at least a race you could look at and try to be competitive in.

Montana, maybe. Montana just went and elected Tester to his third term and I really think if they find the right candidate they could be competitive. Again, they are essentially Maine where, yeah, they're absolutely voting republican for president, but they do weird things all the time in senate/governor races. I mean, it'd take some sort of weird, exceptional candidate though. You'd basically need someone that has already won statewide in a bad democratic year. Maybe someone who won a major office the same year Trump won the state by 20 points. But where would we find someone like that...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_gubernatorial_election,_2016

Oh, why hello sexy. (He's term limited so he could definitely make a good run for it). I'm not saying he'd win. But Montana isn't Tennessee where Breseden just got his teeth knocked in. They've voted for democratic senators before. They've voted for Bullock by 4% points the same year Trump won by 20%. It isn't likely, but the democrats would be stupid not to get Bullock to run.

Iowa is potentially interesting. Ernst won it in a good year for republicans by 9 points. But that seat was held by a democrat just a cycle previous. And democrats just picked up 3/4 districts in the Iowa house. And were just a sliver away from winning the governor. I don't think Iowa is a lost cause like Missouri or Indiana is. Those seats aren't coming back. I think a good candidate here makes it competitive.

Finally, I'd say North Carolina is another good target. It was just in democratic hands before 2014, the senator there has been toying with running for governor, and North Carolina, despite going red in 2016, is very much a purplish state. Trump won by 3% points. Meanwhile he won Ohio by 8. North Carolina is not a lost cause for senate races by any means.

So in summary:
Dem losses: Alabama
Dem competitive: New Hampshire
Rep losses: Colorado
Rep competitive: Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina, Maine, Montana

That isn't too bad for Dems. I'd say overall pickup of +1 or +2. Not what they want, but hey who knows what'll happen.
---

pxlated posted...

It isn't even sex negative man.

The crux of the insult isnt that the fellating is bad. It's about corrik and his (accused) obsession with defending trump.

It's worst offense is being vulgar

Something thats interesting to me is that it implies sucking dick is a submissive act. Its really really not.

Thats where I personally feel the homophobia aspect lands, because its not generally seen as demeaning (outside of some fetish communities) for a woman to suck a man off.
---

this karate chop is like elbowgate all over again
---

LapisLazuli posted...

I think it's a stretch to call that homophobic. Would say the same thing no matter what genders were involved.

It's a little homophobic.

I'd say "licking his toilet". Much more apt description of what's going on too.
---

pardon me maam
---

Inviso posted...

Just to be clear:

Credible witness comes forward with sexual assault allegations against a man who, in open testimony, behaved aggressively and belligerently, and admitted to a drinking problem (not to mention other accusations) - DON'T SMEAR AN INNOCENT MAN!

Women starts aggressively trying to yank a microphone from Jim Acosta while he's trying to talk, and at WORST winds up with his arm pushing hers down - JIM ACOSTA ASSAULTED HER AND SHOULD BE ARRESTED!

Stop comparing the far edge of the right to the entire right.
---

CoolCly posted...

pardon me maam

Always get consent before you karate chop
---

I disagree, Jakayla. While theres nothing WRONG with fellatio, Id say its an inherently demeaning act (all oral sex, really). Because youre essentially providing unreciprocated sexual pleasure, at the expense of having your position lower than your partner, so as to apply your mouth to their genitals.
---

Espeon posted...

I disagree, Jakayla. While theres nothing WRONG with fellatio, Id say its an inherently demeaning act (all oral sex, really). Because youre essentially providing unreciprocated sexual pleasure, at the expense of having your position lower than your partner, so as to apply your mouth to their genitals.

69?
---

Not my place to speak for gay/bi people, but I don't get offended by talk of sucking dick as an insult because the implication of sucking dick is in and of itself a submissive act. Insulting someone for being submissive isn't really that big of a deal.
---

Problem with that is that Trump can probably carry some of those races in some of those elections you named (namely North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona) if the Democratic candidate isn't up to par. Which is why I said the rep gains in places like Kansas and shit will all just flip back in a presidential election year.
---

And hey, I guess if Acosta really wanted Trumps approval, he would have grabbed her by the pussy
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Espeon posted...

I disagree, Jakayla. While theres nothing WRONG with fellatio, Id say its an inherently demeaning act (all oral sex, really). Because youre essentially providing unreciprocated sexual pleasure, at the expense of having your position lower than your partner, so as to apply your mouth to their genitals.

69?

First, what the hell is a Jakayla.

Second, i think the implication when claiming someone is sucking someone elses cock is that the act isnt being reciprocated.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

And hey, I guess if Acosta really wanted Trumps approval, he would have grabbed her by the pussy

It was just a locker room chop
---

By Corriks definition, are he and Ulti invading these topics?
---

white people don't invade, they're either discovering or liberating these topics
---

Jakyl25 posted...

pxlated posted...

It isn't even sex negative man.

The crux of the insult isnt that the fellating is bad. It's about corrik and his (accused) obsession with defending trump.

It's worst offense is being vulgar

Something thats interesting to me is that it implies sucking dick is a submissive act. Its really really not.

Thats where I personally feel the homophobia aspect lands, because its not generally seen as demeaning (outside of some fetish communities) for a woman to suck a man off.

This is your best argument yet, but i see it less about being submissive and more about being too enamored with the person - generally you don't go down on someone you aren't super into. That's open to interpretation though and I at least see your point.

But i also dont think that the common perception is that giving a blowjob is demeaning to women
---

Kenri posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

And hey, I guess if Acosta really wanted Trumps approval, he would have grabbed her by the pussy

It was just a locker room chop

+1
---

Jakyl25 posted...

By Corriks definition, are he and Ulti invading these topics?

If we are unwelcome, obviously. Is vocabulary hard or something?
---

Kenri posted...

white people don't invade, they're either discovering or liberating these topics

+2
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

By Corriks definition, are he and Ulti invading these topics?

If we are unwelcome, obviously. Is vocabulary hard or something?

*cough*
---

Corrik posted...

Problem with that is that Trump can probably carry some of those races in some of those elections you named (namely North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona) if the Democratic candidate isn't up to par. Which is why I said the rep gains in places like Kansas and shit will all just flip back in a presidential election year.

Well he won North Carolina by 3 against a bad democratic candidate. Like the Dems are more likely to take NC back than they are Ohio. Even with Trump up ticket, if Dems get a good candidate that seat is definitely in play. Trump also only won Arizona by 3.5 points. That isn't a huge margin that he can be really helping if the democratic candidate is that much better.

Iowa, definitely, yeah, it is more uphill there. Again though, that depends on how Trump does in the next two years and if democrats nominate someone actually decent. Iowa voted for Obama, after all, and they aren't completely averse to voting for democrats.

Those aren't all "likely" pickups and overall I only think Dems win one or two of those seats, tops. But those are the ones that I would target if I was running things. Those are the ones they have a shot in. Don't throw money away in the other races no matter how handsome the candidate is. Focus on those and I think good things might happen.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

I would love to retire to Montana or Maine. My kind of life.

And intentionally pushing a girl even lightly is generally a really dumb fucking idea as a man. If I did that at work as the lead nurse in the supervisory position I have I would very likely get sued and never work in my field again. Acosta is getting off easy. That is legitimately not cool to do.

Man I can't believe you actually believe he did anything wrong. I mean I know you've gotten a little kooky the last few years but jeez.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

By Corriks definition, are he and Ulti invading these topics?

If we are unwelcome, obviously. Is vocabulary hard or something?

Good thing the law doesn't say Trump personally gets to decide who is welcome and who isn't, then!
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Problem with that is that Trump can probably carry some of those races in some of those elections you named (namely North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona) if the Democratic candidate isn't up to par. Which is why I said the rep gains in places like Kansas and shit will all just flip back in a presidential election year.

Well he won North Carolina by 3 against a bad democratic candidate. Like the Dems are more likely to take NC back than they are Ohio. Even with Trump up ticket, if Dems get a good candidate that seat is definitely in play. Trump also only won Arizona by 3.5 points. That isn't a huge margin that he can be really helping if the democratic candidate is that much better.

Iowa, definitely, yeah, it is more uphill there. Again though, that depends on how Trump does in the next two years and if democrats nominate someone actually decent. Iowa voted for Obama, after all, and they aren't completely averse to voting for democrats.

Those aren't all "likely" pickups and overall I only think Dems win one or two of those seats, tops. But those are the ones that I would target if I was running things. Those are the ones they have a shot in. Don't throw money away in the other races no matter how handsome the candidate is. Focus on those and I think good things might happen.

Like, to illustrate my point, Obama won Nevada in 2012. But so did Heller. Obama's margin was slim enough that there wasn't enough coattails to pull a weaker candidate through the finish line, and he won by seven. North Carolina and Arizona were both slim margins with a bad democratic candidate. If those margins shrink any more, I don't think Trump has real coattails that it would matter all that much regardless.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Problem with that is that Trump can probably carry some of those races in some of those elections you named (namely North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona) if the Democratic candidate isn't up to par. Which is why I said the rep gains in places like Kansas and shit will all just flip back in a presidential election year.

Well he won North Carolina by 3 against a bad democratic candidate. Like the Dems are more likely to take NC back than they are Ohio. Even with Trump up ticket, if Dems get a good candidate that seat is definitely in play. Trump also only won Arizona by 3.5 points. That isn't a huge margin that he can be really helping if the democratic candidate is that much better.

Iowa, definitely, yeah, it is more uphill there. Again though, that depends on how Trump does in the next two years and if democrats nominate someone actually decent. Iowa voted for Obama, after all, and they aren't completely averse to voting for democrats.

Those aren't all "likely" pickups and overall I only think Dems win one or two of those seats, tops. But those are the ones that I would target if I was running things. Those are the ones they have a shot in. Don't throw money away in the other races no matter how handsome the candidate is. Focus on those and I think good things might happen.

Well, you have to remember he is an incumbent now and most tend to do well for a second term. It should in theory give him a slight boost, maybe moreso if the economy remains strong going into it.

But, yeah, it is hard to tabulate how much Hillary Clinton shot the Dems in the foot also.
---

Don't worry, the Democrats will in all likelihood nominate someone almost as bad as Hillary in 2020. To prove they can win with such a candidate.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Don't worry, the Democrats will in all likelihood nominate someone almost as bad as Hillary in 2020. To prove they can win with such a candidate.

Warren is probably the only one as bad as her out there.
---

538 is currently projecting D+37 in the House which is pretty huge (and like +5 relative to last night).
---

Just to weigh in on the dick-sucking argument as a person who has sucked more than zero dicks in his life (sorry to be vulgar but the facts are important here)

I appreciate that some people are trying to be more sex-positive and gay-positive, because sucking dicks is actually really great and you should all try it, and I think it's nice to try to move away from the basic implications of these things

I don't really care that much about it though, it isn't really that offensive because I don't usually read someone's usage of it as "this thing is like sucking a dick, and sucking a dick is gay, and therefore it's bad", I see it as more of a "if you love so much why don't you marry him" kind of thing, you're implying that they must have a romantic relationship, combined with the fact that Trump probably isn't willing to suck his dick back, combined with the fact that this is humiliating for the both of them because neither of them probably appreciate a good dick-sucking from another dude 'cause they're not cool enough

I still say stuff 'sucks dick' all the time, it doesn't really matter a great deal, most people know how to separate the saying from the actual act of fellatio which is beautiful and rewarding

That all said I also wouldn't want someone to take my word as law just because I'm gay, I'm just one guy with an opinion and there are different opinions and ultimately I do appreciate that people are willing to attempt to change something about the issue because I do still think there is a general undercurrent of making fun of men who perform sexual acts that are deemed unmanly which is, if you ask me, totally gay

Trump kicked his asssssss lol
---

Oh jesus we have SND in here too now?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

538 is currently projecting D+37 in the House which is pretty huge (and like +5 relative to last night).

That isn't right I don't think. A +37 is them winning every single uncalled race and they just posted a big article about uncalled races saying that the republicans were favored in several of them. A decent chunk of those go to Dems so you're probably looking at a +32 to +34, but I would be surprised if they hit every single one.
---

Normal people found that press conference where Trump went at Acosta and everyone else as

1) funny and

2) empowering

Finally there's a president who goes up to these press conferences and goes after the press using words normal people can understand.(weak, terrible) They remember Obama(2009-16) had 8 years and when he went up there he said barely anything of consequence, basically talked people to sleep because he was so likeable and what he said SOUNDED good. Sounded good but did nothing to help normal people once the speech was done.

Normal people are very distrustful of the press. Some may dislike Trump, but overall they(we) hate the mainstream media more than him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPMjgM3dJYg" data-time="&start=1





This is why Trump goes after the media and why it's a good strategy.
---

Oh fuck he's invading.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

538 is currently projecting D+37 in the House which is pretty huge (and like +5 relative to last night).

That isn't right I don't think. A +37 is them winning every single uncalled race and they just posted a big article about uncalled races saying that the republicans were favored in several of them. A decent chunk of those go to Dems so you're probably looking at a +32 to +34, but I would be surprised if they hit every single one.

They think all the California results will flip with mail in ballots for the house races. Dk if I agree with that tho.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

That isn't right I don't think. A +37 is them winning every single uncalled race and they just posted a big article about uncalled races saying that the republicans were favored in several of them. A decent chunk of those go to Dems so you're probably looking at a +32 to +34, but I would be surprised if they hit every single one.

From what I'm looking at (NYT) Ds have 223 (+28) and Rs have 197, so Dems only need to win 9/15 to get to +37 (unless I'm being dumb or there's a more up to date tally?)
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

Just to weigh in on the dick-sucking argument as a person who has sucked more than zero dicks in his life (sorry to be vulgar but the facts are important here)

I appreciate that some people are trying to be more sex-positive and gay-positive, because sucking dicks is actually really great and you should all try it, and I think it's nice to try to move away from the basic implications of these things

I don't really care that much about it though, it isn't really that offensive because I don't usually read someone's usage of it as "this thing is like sucking a dick, and sucking a dick is gay, and therefore it's bad", I see it as more of a "if you love so much why don't you marry him" kind of thing, you're implying that they must have a romantic relationship, combined with the fact that Trump probably isn't willing to suck his dick back, combined with the fact that this is humiliating for the both of them because neither of them probably appreciate a good dick-sucking from another dude 'cause they're not cool enough

I still say stuff 'sucks dick' all the time, it doesn't really matter a great deal, most people know how to separate the saying from the actual act of fellatio which is beautiful and rewarding

That all said I also wouldn't want someone to take my word as law just because I'm gay, I'm just one guy with an opinion and there are different opinions and ultimately I do appreciate that people are willing to attempt to change something about the issue because I do still think there is a general undercurrent of making fun of men who perform sexual acts that are deemed unmanly which is, if you ask me, totally gay

The fact this is even a talking point for yinz is just severely ridiculous.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Oh fuck he's invading.

Hi Lapis! it's mostly anti-Trump in here?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

That isn't right I don't think. A +37 is them winning every single uncalled race and they just posted a big article about uncalled races saying that the republicans were favored in several of them. A decent chunk of those go to Dems so you're probably looking at a +32 to +34, but I would be surprised if they hit every single one.

From what I'm looking at (NYT) Ds have 223 (+28) and Rs have 197, so Dems only need to win 9/15 to get to +37 (unless I'm being dumb or there's a more up to date tally?)

Oh actually I'm the dumb one. For some reason I was thinking the Dems started with 199, not 194. "oops"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2018-election-results-coverage/

The latest count I have is 223 vs. 199 with 13 left. So they could lose 4 more basically. That is possible, I suppose.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

That isn't right I don't think. A +37 is them winning every single uncalled race and they just posted a big article about uncalled races saying that the republicans were favored in several of them. A decent chunk of those go to Dems so you're probably looking at a +32 to +34, but I would be surprised if they hit every single one.

From what I'm looking at (NYT) Ds have 223 (+28) and Rs have 197, so Dems only need to win 9/15 to get to +37 (unless I'm being dumb or there's a more up to date tally?)

Oh actually I'm the dumb one. For some reason I was thinking the Dems started with 199, not 194. "oops"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2018-election-results-coverage/

The latest count I have is 223 vs. 199 with 13 left. So they could lose 4 more basically. That is possible, I suppose.

They started at 195 suprak
---

MikeTavish posted...

Man I can't believe you actually believe he did anything wrong. I mean I know you've gotten a little kooky the last few years but jeez.

Just use your ignore list

This is the one thing about the traditional forum structure that is worse than upvote/downvote systems, or even Facebook reaction systems- everything looks legit, and seems to require a response, even the crazy

Guarantee if you could just tally a 'dislike' on a post and move on, and the post grays out or something if it hits a certain negative volume, quality of discussion would go up.

Currently, if someone comes in and posts 'brown people are bad' or some other blatant lie, someone has to come in and disagree because otherwise the whole board looks awful. With a downvote system you can exert your disapproval without adding fuel to the fire/food to the troll
---

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

538 is currently projecting D+37 in the House which is pretty huge (and like +5 relative to last night).

That isn't right I don't think. A +37 is them winning every single uncalled race and they just posted a big article about uncalled races saying that the republicans were favored in several of them. A decent chunk of those go to Dems so you're probably looking at a +32 to +34, but I would be surprised if they hit every single one.

They think all the California results will flip with mail in ballots for the house races. Dk if I agree with that tho.

Yeah I saw that. They do say they think "most if not all" will go to the Dems so it isn't 100%. One some places have called already (because they're in the lead going into this and these skew democratic) but the republicans lead in the other 4. It is possible based on what they said that they all go democratic, but they also aren't sure how many will actually flip at this point since they aren't sure what the exact lean is on these just yet.

Beyond those MN6 and NC9 are likely to go to the republicans. And there are two or three that are true toss ups at this point.

So gaining 9 out of those 13 is possible, but could be tough.
---

SuperNiceDog posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Oh fuck he's invading.

Hi Lapis! it's mostly anti-Trump in here?

Severely far left for the most part. You are evil, dumb, or a piece of shit if you are a conservative here from most users.

A few will talk to you, but most if you don't see it their way will just accuse you of the above. They want validation, not debate.

Suprak is basically the only one you can fairly debate with here. Maybe a couple of others tops.
---

MikeTavish posted...

Man I can't believe you actually believe he did anything wrong. I mean I know you've gotten a little kooky the last few years but jeez.

and we take one teeny tiny step closer

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

538 is currently projecting D+37 in the House which is pretty huge (and like +5 relative to last night).

That isn't right I don't think. A +37 is them winning every single uncalled race and they just posted a big article about uncalled races saying that the republicans were favored in several of them. A decent chunk of those go to Dems so you're probably looking at a +32 to +34, but I would be surprised if they hit every single one.

They think all the California results will flip with mail in ballots for the house races. Dk if I agree with that tho.

Yeah I saw that. They do say they think "most if not all" will go to the Dems so it isn't 100%. One some places have called already (because they're in the lead going into this and these skew democratic) but the republicans lead in the other 4. It is possible based on what they said that they all go democratic, but they also aren't sure how many will actually flip at this point since they aren't sure what the exact lean is on these just yet.

Beyond those MN6 and NC9 are likely to go to the republicans. And there are two or three that are true toss ups at this point.

So gaining 9 out of those 13 is possible, but could be tough.

It makes 538 validated on the house but not on the Senate. Senate is where they skewed polls tho for their predictions.
---

SuperNiceDog posted...

They remember Obama(2009-16) had 8 years and when he went up there he said barely anything of consequence, basically talked people to sleep because he was so likeable and what he said SOUNDED good. Sounded good but did nothing to help normal people once the speech was done

What do you mean by normal people?
---

banananor posted...

SuperNiceDog posted...

They remember Obama(2009-16) had 8 years and when he went up there he said barely anything of consequence, basically talked people to sleep because he was so likeable and what he said SOUNDED good. Sounded good but did nothing to help normal people once the speech was done

What do you mean by normal people?

I have the grave feeling that I'm about to be annoyed