Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I do not and will not put any faith in any poll. period. over 100 million people voted 4 years ago....between 500-1500 people depending on the poll give their responses to questions, and most of them always get the same phone calls from the saqme polling sites/newspapers/radio programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3458

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

If the polls are correct, then it's because the media has allowed the GOP to control the narrative once again.  Trump was right about one thing: in many ways, the media has become the enemy of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't trust the polling when it said people favored impeachment and trust it even less now.  There is no rational by a for that significant a flip unless the numbers to start with were not that hard and fast. 

 

I refuse to give up on this country and won't be a doomsday democrat. Democrats just won Va, elected a dem governor in KY and held LA.  That was just a week ago and suddenly we are back to doomsday.  I said before I thought the house should vote on impeachment and not refer it to the senate. Let the indictment sit.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

LOL, I'm not going to doomsay over a single poll conducted before the hearings fully began and being eagerly touted by the right wing. You are welcome to take those things at face value and wallow in despair if you like. It's what they want.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't really care much about the polls in of themselves. The polls had Clinton winning and we saw where that went (she didn't win what she had to win). It's more the futility of the hearings and the weakness of the field, outside of a few that I would like to see do well, like Warren or Kamala - and even then it's mostly just Kamala I could see as a strong general nominee, although I certainly would be fine with supporting Warren. This primary is just awful and it never ends and it drags down the party and the race.

 

Anyway, I saw this article yesterday about Biden. I don't think a stutter is the reason for his struggles, but it's an interesting read.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/joe-biden-stutter-profile/602401/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

While I was trying to skip the post-debate commentary on MSNBC the other day, I did catch a snippet of a former Obama campaign manager who said that he won't be paying attention to any polls until January, at the earliest.  He used an example, illustrating how far down in the polls Obama initially was in his presidential campaign until the first set of primaries actually began in earnest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree and disagree.

 

I think the problem with the primary season is the length, number of candidates. I don't think the debates themselves are an issue but the number of candidates still allowed to participate and in the race make it problematic.

 

The main problem is the media. I think there are good candidates in the field . Harris, Warren, and yes Klobuchar. I think Castro is also a good candidate. I actually think Bullock COULD have been a good candidate had be gotten more backing and into the race sooner. Problem is the media had decided to swing with Biden and now Buttigieg long ago. Warren I believe was pushed originally by design to split the Bernie vote but notice how they treated her once she started pulling votes from the so called 'centrists". 

 

I actually don't hate Buttigieg. But there is a sense of entitlement there and his dismissiveness of black voters is a turnoff and a deal breaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Agreed. Overall, Wednesday's debate was a big fail and we learned nothing new about the candidates; what their differences are; how their policies and "plans" differ from one another. We know Warren and Bernie's stance on healthcare, how about the other 8 candidates on stage be given 90 seconds each to explain their plans? 

 

There's no need to waste time asking what they'd do to Trump after he's out of office. We know they all despise him. I'm tired of these moderators/networks of trying to create buzzworthy moments and easy click-baiting headline makers, pitting candidates against one another for unnecessary reasons. 

 

"Donald Trump. Terrible for America. Great for CBS" --- Les Moonves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't hate Buttigieg either; I think Buttigieg is tone deaf and arrogant and I wish he'd just tried again at getting a job at the DNC or in someone's campaign, but he has some charisma and potential. Unfortunately his presence has helped drag the primary down to the petty, identity politics level that it has delved into. There is always a lot of "why isn't it me? why isn't it me?" griping from the supporters of other candidates, and at times the other candidates seem to come close to saying it themselves. Castro in particular has ended up being defined by his resentment of other candidates - O'Rourke, Biden, Buttigieg - and the idea that they are somehow taking a place he was supposed to have had. I feel that to a point with Booker and Klobuchar as well. The whole "people only care about Buttigieg being a Rhodes Scholar because he's white and Booker isn't." That's true, but it's also true that Booker has had a decade of media attention, much of it very positive, including gushing coverage over his romantic relationship with a popular actress. If he isn't getting traction is it really because of some guy nobody heard of until this year? 

 

One of the reasons I was impressed with Harris in the debate is she didn't try to play those types of games, even when she was teed up, and instead just made a forthright case for herself and her candidacy. 

 

It's unfortunate that this is in such short supply and we instead have frontrunners (I don't count Buttigieg as a frontrunner and Warren seems to be on the decline so at this point it seems to be Bernie and Biden) who want or need validation, whether it's for the best for their party or country or not. I think that's what leaves me so dispirited. I just don't know how it got this way. I have no trust and no respect for Bernie, and I am mostly just deeply concerned about Biden's health at this point, not to mention his godawful son. 

 

If Harris can't come back then I will keep hoping for Warren. I saw a video today of Ayanna Pressley standing up for her over a heckler, and I couldn't help feeling that this is just the start of criticism Warren is going to face, and if she can't face this now, how will she deal with what's to come? 

 

I just wish it could have gone another way. I guess that's what you get in politics, but weeks like this I have a hard time figuring out how most of these people will make it another year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy