A point. I was somewhat anxiously watching online the process of certifying votes on a certain January 6th, when suddenly there were people running and shouting and then the screen went blank.
Abdul El-Sayed very politely murders a troll at his town hall:
While I understand people being concerned about the Michigan senate race, it’s pretty clear to see how AES convinced the voters in the Michigan Democratic primary to pick him as their candidate.
That was awesome. Thank you for sharing that @Gorsnak.
It was.
And notice that he immediately disavowed allegiance to the Muslim brotherhood at the very beginning, and Tommy failed to hear him.
That was indeed very well done. Thanks for posting.
Unsurprisingly, ‘Tommy’ is the son of Timmy Teepell, a Republican strategist who worked for congressman and then Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal from 2004 to 2011. Tommy has worked for Josh Hawley and also worked for the failed campaign of Philip Sarnecki, who ran for Kansas governor this year.
Also
An October 2nd story in the University of Michigan student newspaper, The Michigan Daily, revealed that a conservative PAC called America Next offered College Republicans $200 to travel to an upcoming El-Sayed town hall in Flint to “boo” him and ask him inflammatory questions—hoping to spark embarrassing viral moments for the candidate.
“Tommy” didn’t fail to hear El-Sayed’s disavowal, he refused to hear it. Multiple times.
ETA: Which, given @Railer13’s revelation, is hardly surprising.
Looks to me like that backfired.
And watch to the very end-- After El-Sayed’s answer, Tommy just leaves the room.
Is the PAC gonna ask for its $200 back?
Poll out of curiosity.
If you had to wager a large amount of money on the midterms, you would bet that in mid-January…
- Democrats control both houses
- Democrats control the Senate only
- Democrats control the House only
- Republicans still control both houses, but more weakly
- Status quo, more or less
- Republican control of Congress is stronger
- Congress doesn’t exist anymore, and Trump is a sole dictator
0
voters
There is a lot of pessimism in the thread, so reminder that polling errors go both ways. The senate will be tight if Democrats underperform polls, if they overperform we might be talking about South Carolina and Nebraska going blue and states like Montana, Mississippi and Florida getting close.
If I HAD to wager a large amount of money via a gun to the head, I’d go with Democrats controlling both houses because go big or go home. But I’d never voluntarily wager a large amount of money on that. I might wager a small amount of money on it, but really if I could pick a wager it would be a small amount on the Democrats winning at least one house which I think is very likely but not guaranteed. I would never wager a large amount of money on anything involving politics.
In fact never wager a large amount of money on anything folks and never wager on politics at all. That way lies madness.
Yep, that’s exactly how I took it and how I voted. “If you forced me to bet the house” was one way that was commonly expressed in my neck of the woods.
But I’m not confident enough to actually place a wager.
I’m afraid I don’t get the logic, given that I didn’t attach any odds to any option, so I don’t see why that option is “bigger” than any other. I just wanted to see what your sincere beliefs were if the “chips were down,” literally.
In 2016 I would have wagered that Hillary would not run. And I would have wagered that if she did run, she would win. In 2024 I would have waged Trump would lose. I’m not betting on politics.
Since I have no idea whether the Democrats will control one or both houses (but I suspect it will be at least one), but I can only vote for one option and I would prefer they controlled both, betting the large amount on the option I prefer is no better or worse odds so I might as well.
My sincere belief is that the Democrats will probably (not definitely) control the House, but it is a coin flip on whether they will take the Senate.
Which is exactly why I phrased the poll that way; I wanted to avoid “ehh, I dunno…” and see how people would commit if “the chips were down.” Gamefication admittedly didn’t occur to me, although someone else thought to gamefy it in the opposite way, so maybe it’s a wash…?
Except that those of us who really don’t know — and of course none of us do — are mostly just going to refuse to commit.
I don’t have a large amount of money. If somebody somehow forced me to bet a large amount of money, and I lost it, I’d be utterly screwed. People who have enough money to afford to lose “a large amount” are probably going to be somewhat more willing to answer such polls, however theoretical they are.