Is that really enough time to make a big deal out of the CBO score?
Score should be in the news cycle by the mid-afternoon evening, with hundreds of journos finding all the juicy buts for them. Just have an ad ready to go and plug in the numbers.
Is that really enough time to make a big deal out of the CBO score?
Gianforte already fucked up pretty hard on the AHCA (tried to play it off as being on the fence publicly, while supporting it privately, which got caught out.) Alone, I'd say no, but given everything else, it's going to be more inches in a political race that's down to them.
People waking up to the news Republicans want to take away insurance from 20ish million people the day you go vote can't be good news for the Republican.
On the other hand, if Gianforte wins, it will embolden the shit out of them.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+8
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
To be fair most people not from montana have a low opinion based on geography and closeness to idaho.
Yeah. That's why that Buzzfeed article I posted earlier is worth reading. In a lot of ways, Gianforte is the sort who has become a bit of a despised stereotype here - the wealthy outsider who uses his money to control land that should be accessible to the public. (He has an ad running where he tries to deny he cut off stream access, when that's part of the public record.) His buddy Daines has had success in large part by embracing the Religious Right, but that's not his style, which is part of why he failed in the gubernatorial race.
Is that really enough time to make a big deal out of the CBO score?
No, but it's also not enough time to spin/respond to it. And will likely be the main story top of mind going to the polls.
When will MT get seated? If the Dem's pickup that still makes it 217-216 with no flipping for any amendments they may need for Reconciliation.
Since it's a special election, the winner would be sworn in as soon as possible. And I think this race is going to be narrower than people think.
I think it has a chance to be narrow. But narrow isn't winning.
Gianforte lost a gubernatorial race that was supposed to be his for the taking. I think that a lot of people outside of Montana don't understand the state, and try to extrapolate national trends that don't always fit. I think Quist can win, and the CBO dropping the rating right before the polls open isn't going to help a candidate who really fucked up on the AHCA.
Y'all have sent Tester to the Senate twice and have had a Democratic Governor for over a decade now.
The fact that Democrats had controlled the Governorship for 12 years was supposed to be a factor in Gianforte's favor, and he still managed to screw it up. Again, in personal fundraising, Quist is trouncing him - the reason it looks close on paper is because Gianforte dumped $1M of his own money in.
My view of Montana is that it's pretty much like all the states around it, except you give a shit about environmental/land issues.
I could be way off, though.
Montana is really two states culturally - the west tends to be more left-leaning, as this is where the unionized trades were, while the east is more right wing, since it's farm and ranch country.
You may think to yourself ebum, why are you posting a random angry tweet? And then you see the name Brian Schatz and you're like, wait... that's a United States Senator.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
My view of Montana is that it's pretty much like all the states around it, except you give a shit about environmental/land issues.
I could be way off, though.
Montana is really two states culturally - the west tends to be more left-leaning, as this is where the unionized trades were, while the east is more right wing, since it's farm and ranch country.
You sound a lot like I did when I was still defending Wisconsin politics.
I'll just say I hope you're a lot more right than I was.
My view of Montana is that it's pretty much like all the states around it, except you give a shit about environmental/land issues.
I could be way off, though.
Montana is really two states culturally - the west tends to be more left-leaning, as this is where the unionized trades were, while the east is more right wing, since it's farm and ranch country.
My view of Montana is that it's pretty much like all the states around it, except you give a shit about environmental/land issues.
I could be way off, though.
Montana is really two states culturally - the west tends to be more left-leaning, as this is where the unionized trades were, while the east is more right wing, since it's farm and ranch country.
Pretty much every state is two states culturally.
Not true! Ohio and Michigan are at least three.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+2
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
You may think to yourself ebum, why are you posting a random angry tweet? And then you see the name Brian Schatz and you're like, wait... that's a United States Senator.
If anything, I get the impression they are trying to speed it up, use the cover of the implosions to hide what they were doing.
Final MT ads
This is a weird one from the GOP SuperPAC with a weird mixed message. The first 5 seconds are Quist singing part of his campaign song (which would totally work on me because I'd roll my eyes hard if he was running in MA) before a standard tax problems/Pelosi association attack ad. I think presenting Quist's argument "I'll stand with you" and showing him in a cowboy hat and then saying the opposite is not going to be super effective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0T21oG6C_c
Final MT ads
This is a weird one from the GOP SuperPAC with a weird mixed message. The first 5 seconds are Quist singing part of his campaign song (which would totally work on me because I'd roll my eyes hard if he was running in MA) before a standard tax problems/Pelosi association attack ad. I think presenting Quist's argument "I'll stand with you" and showing him in a cowboy hat and then saying the opposite is not going to be super effective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0T21oG6C_c
It seems like Quist has the more coherent message.
A lot of the dark money ads are just out and out attacks on Quist, without anything said about Gianforte. Which should illustrate the problem they have (namely, they have a product they're not sure how to sell.)
You may think to yourself ebum, why are you posting a random angry tweet? And then you see the name Brian Schatz and you're like, wait... that's a United States Senator.
If anything, I get the impression they are trying to speed it up, use the cover of the implosions to hide what they were doing.
The FCC movements especially are egregious.
Wouldn't be surprised if they were just trying to get it done before the hammer comes down and they can't use Trump as a distraction anymore. The press and a large chunk of the country are out for blood now and I don't see it stopping if/when Mueller indictes Trump since they were all complacent in all of this.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) says the possibility that more secret recordings could be leaked is a "cause for concern" after a leak emerged from a 2016 House GOP leadership meeting.
Ryan on Friday refused to speculate who might be the culprit, but he agreed that former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin, a former leadership staffer who attended that meeting, was the name on everyone's lips in Washington.
You may think to yourself ebum, why are you posting a random angry tweet? And then you see the name Brian Schatz and you're like, wait... that's a United States Senator.
If anything, I get the impression they are trying to speed it up, use the cover of the implosions to hide what they were doing.
The FCC movements especially are egregious.
I believe the FCC still needs to have a comment period after this week's vote, so it's not a done deal yet. But we're certainly headed that way.
Pai seems determined to dismantle net neutrality because...? I haven't heard any justification for it that makes sense, and no one will come right and say "well we want telecoms to have more of your money." It's quite ugly.
There is a lot of bipartisan support for it, and it's something that Republicans and Democrats could work together on to create some really robust legislation, but Republican incompetence and the chaos of scandal make it pretty hard to do anything.
You may think to yourself ebum, why are you posting a random angry tweet? And then you see the name Brian Schatz and you're like, wait... that's a United States Senator.
If anything, I get the impression they are trying to speed it up, use the cover of the implosions to hide what they were doing.
The FCC movements especially are egregious.
I believe the FCC still needs to have a comment period after this week's vote, so it's not a done deal yet. But we're certainly headed that way.
Pai seems determined to dismantle net neutrality because...? I haven't heard any justification for it that makes sense, and no one will come right and say "well we want telecoms to have more of your money." It's quite ugly.
There is a lot of bipartisan support for it, and it's something that Republicans and Democrats could work together on to create some really robust legislation, but Republican incompetence and the chaos of scandal make it pretty hard to do anything.
Pretty much everything the FCC has done the past few months in regards to ISPs is really sickening in that there are clearly no benefits to the end user (who the FCC exists to protect!). First they gave them the right to sell our internet history, and now this.
Like you alluded to, they aren't even trying to come up with reasonable excuses. The internet history thing was done because it wasn't fair that websites could sell our data and ISPs couldn't. Ignoring that that is an apples to oranges comparison, maybe the solution should have been to make it so websites couldn't do that either.
Now the reasoning for dismantling net neutrality is because not classifying ISPs as utilities (which they are. They really really are.) will spur expansion and innovation. How the fuck is classifying them as utilities preventing that? What innovation is being prevented by forcing them to not throttle or block websites? Technology that will let them throttle better?
The worst part is that because it's the FCC, and most people don't even know what net neutrality is, they are getting away with all of this with minimal blowback.
Also, we have details on UT-03 (Chaffetz's seat): Filing deadline May 26 (next Friday), primaries August 15, general November 7. The Utah Legislature is pissed about this.
Posts
The election here is next Thursday.
That could be some fun timing.
Score should be in the news cycle by the mid-afternoon evening, with hundreds of journos finding all the juicy buts for them. Just have an ad ready to go and plug in the numbers.
It'll likely be news Thursday morning unless the CBO releases it end of day
Gianforte already fucked up pretty hard on the AHCA (tried to play it off as being on the fence publicly, while supporting it privately, which got caught out.) Alone, I'd say no, but given everything else, it's going to be more inches in a political race that's down to them.
On the other hand, if Gianforte wins, it will embolden the shit out of them.
I have a really hard time imagining this score will be better than the last.
Maybe it kicks only 20 million people off insurance.
No, but it's also not enough time to spin/respond to it. And will likely be the main story top of mind going to the polls.
When will MT get seated? If the Dem's pickup that still makes it 217-216 with no flipping for any amendments they may need for Reconciliation.
Since it's a special election, the winner would be sworn in as soon as possible. And I think this race is going to be narrower than people think.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah. That's why that Buzzfeed article I posted earlier is worth reading. In a lot of ways, Gianforte is the sort who has become a bit of a despised stereotype here - the wealthy outsider who uses his money to control land that should be accessible to the public. (He has an ad running where he tries to deny he cut off stream access, when that's part of the public record.) His buddy Daines has had success in large part by embracing the Religious Right, but that's not his style, which is part of why he failed in the gubernatorial race.
I think it has a chance to be narrow. But narrow isn't winning.
Gianforte lost a gubernatorial race that was supposed to be his for the taking. I think that a lot of people outside of Montana don't understand the state, and try to extrapolate national trends that don't always fit. I think Quist can win, and the CBO dropping the rating right before the polls open isn't going to help a candidate who really fucked up on the AHCA.
The fact that Democrats had controlled the Governorship for 12 years was supposed to be a factor in Gianforte's favor, and he still managed to screw it up. Again, in personal fundraising, Quist is trouncing him - the reason it looks close on paper is because Gianforte dumped $1M of his own money in.
I could be way off, though.
Montana is really two states culturally - the west tends to be more left-leaning, as this is where the unionized trades were, while the east is more right wing, since it's farm and ranch country.
You may think to yourself ebum, why are you posting a random angry tweet? And then you see the name Brian Schatz and you're like, wait... that's a United States Senator.
You sound a lot like I did when I was still defending Wisconsin politics.
I'll just say I hope you're a lot more right than I was.
Pretty much every state is two states culturally.
Not true! Ohio and Michigan are at least three.
If anything, I get the impression they are trying to speed it up, use the cover of the implosions to hide what they were doing.
The FCC movements especially are egregious.
This is a weird one from the GOP SuperPAC with a weird mixed message. The first 5 seconds are Quist singing part of his campaign song (which would totally work on me because I'd roll my eyes hard if he was running in MA) before a standard tax problems/Pelosi association attack ad. I think presenting Quist's argument "I'll stand with you" and showing him in a cowboy hat and then saying the opposite is not going to be super effective.
Contrasted with
It seems like Quist has the more coherent message.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
A lot of the dark money ads are just out and out attacks on Quist, without anything said about Gianforte. Which should illustrate the problem they have (namely, they have a product they're not sure how to sell.)
Wouldn't be surprised if they were just trying to get it done before the hammer comes down and they can't use Trump as a distraction anymore. The press and a large chunk of the country are out for blood now and I don't see it stopping if/when Mueller indictes Trump since they were all complacent in all of this.
Yay McMullin
I believe the FCC still needs to have a comment period after this week's vote, so it's not a done deal yet. But we're certainly headed that way.
Pai seems determined to dismantle net neutrality because...? I haven't heard any justification for it that makes sense, and no one will come right and say "well we want telecoms to have more of your money." It's quite ugly.
There is a lot of bipartisan support for it, and it's something that Republicans and Democrats could work together on to create some really robust legislation, but Republican incompetence and the chaos of scandal make it pretty hard to do anything.
Not complicated anymore.
That's just what they want the base to believe.
Truth is much simpler, telecom companies are paying for it.
Pretty much everything the FCC has done the past few months in regards to ISPs is really sickening in that there are clearly no benefits to the end user (who the FCC exists to protect!). First they gave them the right to sell our internet history, and now this.
Like you alluded to, they aren't even trying to come up with reasonable excuses. The internet history thing was done because it wasn't fair that websites could sell our data and ISPs couldn't. Ignoring that that is an apples to oranges comparison, maybe the solution should have been to make it so websites couldn't do that either.
Now the reasoning for dismantling net neutrality is because not classifying ISPs as utilities (which they are. They really really are.) will spur expansion and innovation. How the fuck is classifying them as utilities preventing that? What innovation is being prevented by forcing them to not throttle or block websites? Technology that will let them throttle better?
The worst part is that because it's the FCC, and most people don't even know what net neutrality is, they are getting away with all of this with minimal blowback.
Also, we have details on UT-03 (Chaffetz's seat): Filing deadline May 26 (next Friday), primaries August 15, general November 7. The Utah Legislature is pissed about this.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
No, they wanted to have a compressed schedule, with parties picking their own candidates, and a short general.
Is that just so they could cut costs of the overall process, or is there another benefit to them?
Party over name recognition I'd guess.
Come Overwatch with meeeee